DECISIONS AND OPINIONS OF THE Railroad and Warehouse Commission OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS Volume II AND Various Opinions of the Attorney General Relating to Matters in this Department 1900 to 1907. Compiled by WILLIAM KILPATRICK, Secretary. SPRINGFIELD, ILLINOIS PHILLIPS BROS., STATE PRINTERS. 1908 A; '.:!:.*.*..:. : >. . , . . , * J J - .--..- J -.-.-' . ...... .,, ) ,1 . - ' '.; c : ' 'V ' ! , 1 V , * . - J u , * " 3 .... ,. - - o^, ' ORDERS AND OPINIONS. . The following orders and opinions have been rendered by the Commission : BEFORE THE RAILROAD AND WAREHOUSE COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS. Illinois Transfer Railroad Company, vs. 33 - Louisville, Evansville & St. Louis Consolidated Railroad Company. 3 ' ' ' Petition to Cross at Grade, Etc., at Webber Street in Winstanley Park, St. Clair County, Illinois. APPEARANCES : ,, , . For Petitioner, J. M. HAMILL. For Respondent, W. L. TAYLOR, J. D. WELLMAN, E. C. KRAMER. A.V Opinion by LINDLY, Chairman. This is a petition filed on behalf of the Illinois Transfer Railroad company to cross the tracks of the Louisville, Evansville & St. Louis Consolidated Railroad company in Winstanley Park, a short distance east of the city limits of East St. Louis in St. Clair county, 111. The petition was filed Nov. 15, 1899. The hearing of this petition was set for Tuesday, Dec. 19, 1899, when it was continued on motion of the respondent until Friday, Jan. 12, 1900, at which time the case was partially heard, and continued by agreement to Friday, Jan. 26, 1900, at which time the trial was concluded. The evidence in this case shows that the proposed li^e of the petitioner would cross the main track and side track of the Louisville, Evansville & St. Louis Consolidated railroad at the place where the main track of the Louis- ville, Evansville & St. Louis Consolidated railroad is located upon Survey One Hundred Twenty-six (126) of the common fields of Cahokia, in the village of Winstanley Park, in St. Cl-nr county, Illinois; the center lines ot* the two proposed tracks of the said Illinois Transfer Railroad to be laid across the main track and side track of the Louisville, Evansville & St. Louis Consolidated railroad at grade, being respectively six and one-half (6 1 /*.) feet on each side of the northeasterly prolongation of the center line of Pueblo street, as established through the sub-division of Denverside, in Centerville. Station township, St. Clair county, Illinois, (as said street is shown and des- ignated in Flat Book F, page 40 of the records of St. Clair county, Illinois), if said Pueblo street wera extended across the right of way of the said Louis- ville, Evansville & St. Louis Consolidated railroad. The description of said proposed crossing being more" pa) ticularly described on a certain plat intro- duced in evidence jnarked Exhibit "A," which plat is made a part of this order. The evidence' further shows that the Illinois Transfer Railroad company is a railroad corporation, incorporated and organized under the laws of the State of Illinois for the purpose of building, maintaining and operating a belt or connecting railway, with a single or double track to connect with all of the railroads running from the east, north or south through Madison or St. Clair counties, in the State of Illinois, as described in said petition. It further appears from the evidence in this case that the said Illinois Transfer Railroad company will cross with their tracks the tracks of the Vandalia railroad, the Baltimore & Ohio Southwestern railroad, the St. Louis & O'Fallon railroad and the Louisville & Nashville railroad. It further appears from the testimony that the said Illinois Transfer Rail- road company has by agreement with the various roads aforesaid obtained the written consent of said roads to cross the tracks of the same at grade and make proper connections with the main tracks of said roads for the purpose of operating a belt railroad. It is contended by respondent that another corporation pretending to be incorporated and organized under the laws of the State of Illinois for the purpose of building a track upon the route described in said petition and prior to the time of the incorporation of the Illinois Transfer Railroad com- pany had already laid down a single track on part of the route described and set forth in petitioner's petition. It appears from the testimony in this case that prior to the incorporation of the said Illinois Transfer Railroad company, that there was incorporated a railroad company under the name of the East St. Louis Belt Railroad com- pany, and that they had acquired certain right of way and constructed a por- tion of the track on the right of way acquired under this title. It further appears that said railroad had not been completed or operated by the said East St. Louis Belt Railroad company, but had been partially graded and constructed. It appears from; the testimony that the said Illinois Transfer Railroad com- pany, after its said incorporation, acquired all the rights, franchises and property of the said East St. Louis Belt Railroad company, and was at the time of the filing of the petition in this case, the sole owner of the right of way, franchises and property of the said East St. Louis Belt Railroad com- pany, and had full right to file the petition herein; and the contention of respondent that this was the acquiring or consolidation of parallel lines of railroad as set forth in the statutes of the State of Illinois is not supported either by the testimony or under the law, for it simply amounted to acquiring by the Illinois Transfer Railroad company of the property and franchises of the East St. Louis Belt railroad, which at the time of such acquirement was neither constructed nor in operation, and the rule as to the parallel lines of railroads, contended for by respondent, has no application whatever under the facts in this case; and the right of the Illinois Transfer Railroad com- pany to acquire from the East St. Louis Belt Railroad company their right of way, franchises, etc., can not be denied under the law. It further appears from the testimony that the original right of way of the said Louisville, Evansville & St. Louis Consolidated Railroad company at the point of the proposed crossing is one hundred and ten (110) feet wide. It is only shown upon the map introduced in evidence to be one hundred (100) feet wide, but according to the evidence it appears to be one hundred and ten (110) feet wide at that point. Under the statute providing for the crossing of one railroad with another, it is provided under "An Act in relation to the crossing of one railroad by another, and to prevent danger to life and to property from grade crossings," approved May 27, 1889; in force July 1, 1889, Section 205: "That hereafter any railroad company desiring to cross with its tracks the main line of another railroad company, shall construct the crossing in such manner and at such place as will not necessarily impede or endanger the travel or transportation upon the railway crossed; if in any case objection be made to the place or mode of crossing proposed by the com- pany desiring the same, either party may apply to the Board of Railroad and Warehouse Commissioners, and it shall be their duty to view the ground, and give all parties interested an opportunity to be heard; after full investigation and with due regard to safety of life and property, said board shall give a decision prescribing the place where and the manner in which said crossing shall be made, but in all cases the compensation to be paid for property actu- ally required for the crossing, and all damages resulting therefrom, shall be determined in the manner provided by law in case the parties fail to agree." It appears from the evidence in this case that in March, 1899, under certain proceedings in the United States Circuit Court, had 'by the receiver of the said respondent railroad company, he was authorized to purchase a certain strip of ground two hundred (200) feet wide part of the distance and two hundred and eighty (280) feet wide at another portion, being at the point in question, and three hundred (300) feet at another point, with a total length of five thousand six hundred and twenty-eight (5,628) feet lying along the side of and adjacert to the right of way of the main Una of said Louisville, Evansville & St. Louis Consolidated Railroad company at the point of the proposed crossing, which said right of way of said main line at the point of said proposed crossing is one hundred and ten (110) feet, making a total width at said proposed point of crossing of three hundred and ninety (390) feet. At the time the petition in this case was filed and at the time the crossing was viewed by the Railroad and Warehouse Commission three (3) or more certain tracks had been laid upon ties, without any grading or surfacing of the same, upon the strip of ground so purchased as aforesaid, which tracks are totally disconnected at either end with the main or side track of the said Louisville, Evansville & St. Louis Consolidated Railroad at the point of said crossing, or at any point whatever. It is insisted that it is the intention. of the respondent railroad company to use the strip of ground so purchased for yard purposes, and that, in passing upon the question of the crossing of the tracks of the Illinois Transfer Railroad company over the tracks of the respondent railroad company, that the commission should take into considera- tion said tracks so laid upon said strip of ground, and also the additional fact that it is intended to use said strip of ground and said tracks so laid upon said strip of ground for yard purposes. The inquiry of the commission under the statute is limited to the crossing of the main line of one railroad company wHh another, and does not extend beyond the original right of way or main track and connecting tracks at the time said petition was filed. The commission cannot enter into the field of the probable intention of respondent as to the use they desire or propose to make of the strip of ground in question. The damages arising to the respond- ent railroad company from the crossing of the main track and side track, as well as the crossing of the other tracks on the strip of ground in question, are questions that will have to be settled under the Eminent Domain Act, which this commission cannot consider. Under this statute the commission is only to determine the place and mode of crossing, and all questions of dam- ages are to be determined under proper condemnation proceedings. It is no doubt true, that if the respondent railroad company was operating a yard at the point in question, that the commission would consider the number of tracks and yard in question in passing on the question of a grade or over- head crossing, so far as it affected safety to life and property, and so far as it would necessarily impede and endanger the travel or transportation upon the railway so crossed, but for the commission to enter into any future use that is proposed to be made of the property in question would not be proper under the law, for the reason that the respondent railroad company could change its intention at any moment and abandon the proposed use of the property in question. The commission must deal with the status of the property as it exists at the time the petition was filed and the hearing had. The object and purposes of the building of the road in question, the Illinois Transfer Railroad company, is to furnish terminal facilities for the various roads entering the city of East St. Louis, and also, as appears from the evi- dence, to furnish shipping facilities to large industries situated along the line of the proposed route of the road in question. In order that the object and purposes of this road may be carried out, and these facilities furnished, it is necessary that they be allowed to unite and connect with the roads which they cross. Under the statute of this State it becomes the duty of the Rail- road and Warehouse Commission to permit one railroad crossing another to unite and connect its tracks with such roads so crossed, in order that ship- ping facilities may be furnished to each of the said roads. In this case, by agreement, the principal trunk lines entering the city of East St. Louis crossed by this road, with the exception of the respondent company, agreed with the terminal road in question for the crossing of their said tracks at grades, and the uniting and connecting of the same in order that terminal facilities may be furnished by the Illinois Transfer Railroad Company. It is contended that because the respondent railroad company is operating a belt or terminal railway, that such fact ought to be taken into considera- tion in passing upon the question of the proposed crossing. And it is further insisted that the present terminal facilities furnished by the respondent rail- road company are sufficient and ample. It is sufficient to say that it is the object and purpose of the law to give the best opportunity and facilities for railway shipment. That has been the policy pursued by the State of Illinois for years. To hold otherwise would be to say that no competing lines could be built and no additional terminal facilities could be added in the city of East St. Louis. We cannot so hold and the law cannot be so construed. It is further contended that the place of crossing should be changed and carried to the east end of the property acquired by the respondent railroad company, which would cause the road in question to build and acquire the right of way two miles distant. This only could be urged by a competing line, and cannot be considered reasonable under the evidence in the case. It is also urged that it might be well for this road to run at the west end of the strip of ground acquired by the respondent railroad company, but it is in evidence that if such change should be made by the commission, that it would destroy all connecting facilities with the Shickle-Harrison-Howard Iron Com- pany, which is the largest manufacturing establishment on the line of road in question. It does not come within the province of this commission to make changes in the proposed location of a crossing, the effect of which would be to destroy connections with manufacturing establishments which desire ter- minal facilities simply for the convenience of a competing line that seeks to destroy the building of a road which proposes to furnish facilities equal to theirs. We cannot but repeat what we said in a former decision, that there can be no question "but that all grade crossings of railroads or of highways are in the main dangerous, and should be avoided whenever it is practicable and possible to do so without placing too great a burden upon the company con- structing the same. We believe that the policy of this commission should be to order overhead crossings whenever it is possible and practicable to do so." Or, in another case, where we said: "That it is and will be the policy of this commission to order overhead or under crossings wherever and when- ever it is possible to do so, believing as we do that the advanced thought and system of railroad building demands it, and that the increased speed of trains and the safety of life and property require it." And we still insist that private inconvenience and cost must yield to public necessity. But in this case there is a material difference between the cases referred to and the case at bar. The road seeking to cross in this case is a belt line carrying no passengers, and being built for the purpose only of connection with the main arteries of traffic entering the city of East St. Louis, carrying no passengers and doing a freight business only. Their trains are run at all times under control, and we believe, as we have insisted from the origin of this commission, that in cities overhead crossings are not only expensive to '7 the road crossing, but are destructive of the value of property abutting the same, and inconvenience, in this case particularly, to the manufacturing in- dustries situated along the line. It can not therefore be urged that this commission is in any way deviating or abandoning the policy set forth in former decisions, in saying, that this belt road constructed for the purpose of carrying freight only, shall go at grade in this particular case. DECISION. It is therefore ordered and decreed that the petitioner, the Illinois Transfer Railroad Company, have leave and it is hereby empowered and ordered to cross with its tracks the main line and track and connecting track of the Louisville, Evansville & St. Louis Consolidated Railroad Company at grade, and connect and unite their tracks with the same, at a point described and set forth in this decision, and as marked and designated on the plat attached hereto and made a part of this decision, marked Exhibit "A." (Plat referred to herein on file in office.) It is further ordered that the petitioning road interlock the crossing at the above named point with an interlocking system, in accordance with the re- quirements of the Board of Railroad and Warehouse Commissioners of the State of Illinois, and that the cost of construction and future maintenance thereof shall be paid by the petitioning road, and that the operating expenses shall be divided between the roads as follows: The road seeking to cross, viz: The Illinois Transfer Railroad Company shall pay three-fourths (%) of the operating expenses and the Louisville, Evansville & St. Louis Consolidated Railroad Company one-fourth Dated at Springfield, 111., this 6th day of February, A. D. 1899. BEFORE THE RAILROAD AND WAREHOUSE COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS. Baltimore &J3hio Southwestern Railway Company vs. Jacksonville & St. Louis Railway Company. Petition for protection of crossing at Shattuc, Illinois. APPEARANCES : R. E. HAMIL, for Petitioner. C. M. JSTANTON, for Respondent. The Baltimore & Ohio Southwestern Railway Company filed a petition with the Railroad and Warehouse Commission of Illinois, setting forth that they were the owners of a line operated and extending from East St. Louis in the State of Illinois, to a point on the Wabash river, opposite the city of Vin- cennes, Indiana; that the main track of said line crosses at grade the main track of the Jacksonville & St. Louis Railway Company at Shattuc, in the county of Clinton, in the State of Illinois; that said Baltimore & Ohio South- western Railway Company, the petitioner herein, desires to unite with said Jacksonville & St. Louis Railway Company in protecting said crossing with proper devices and appliances, thus securing greater safety to persons and property and enabling trains to pass said crossing without stopping. 8 The petition further sets forth, that said Baltimore & Ohio Southwestern Railway company could not agree with the said Jacksonville & St. Louis Railway company upon a plan for protecting said crossing. The petition further sets forth that the public good requires that said crossing be pro- tected ; and filed with the commission plats showing- the location of the tracks involved in said crossing, and made said plats part of its petition herein. The petitioner prays that the commission give notice to the said Jackson- ville & St. Louis Railway company of the filing of said petition, ask the com- mission to view the site of said crossing, and also to appoint a time and place for the hearing of said petition, and praying that the commission enter an order prescribing a proper device and machinery for the proper protection of said crossing, in pursuance of the act of the General Assembly, approved June 2, 1891. The petitioner further prays that the commission will in said order fix the proportion of the cost of construction, operation and mainte- nance of said device that each of the parties herein shall pay. Notice of the filing of said petition by said Baltimore & Ohio Southwestern Railway company was properly given to the said respondent, the Jackson- ville &. St. Louis Railway company, and they acknowledged service; the commission viewed the site of the crossing as required by statute, and fixed a time and place for the hearing of said petition, the same being at the office of the commission at Springfield on the 2d day of January, which said date was afterwards changed to the 3d day of January, A.' D. 1900. The Jacksonville & St. Louis Railway company filed an answer to said petition asking that an interlocker be not granted, for reasons set forth in the answer, also correspondence between the said Baltimore & Ohio Southwestern Railway company and the said Jacksonville & St. Louis Railway company relative to said crossing. FINDINGS. The commission after hearing the evidence in the case and the arguments of counsel find: That the crossing is of such a character as to demand an interlocking sys- tem for the protection of life and property; and that an interlocking system should be constructed, maintained and operated at the said crossing of the Baltimore & Ohio Southwestern Railway company and Jacksonville & St. Louis Railway company at Shattuc, 111. It is therefore ordered that the said railway companies forthwith proceed to protect said crossing at Shattuc, 111., by an interlocking system, to be ap- proved according to the statute by the Railroad and Warehouse Commission; that the same be constructed under the supervision of the consulting engi- neer of said Railroad and Warehouse Commission of Illinois. It is further ordered by the commission that each of said companies shall pay such proportion of the cost of constructing, erecting and maintaing the said interlocking system and all thereto appertaining as the number of levers that shall operate the switches and signals and other parts of said interlock- ing system in and for the respective tracks of each of said companies shall bear to the whole number of levers required in said interlocking system, and each of said companies shall pay one-half (*) of the cost of operating the said interlocking system. It is further ordered that should either of the companies aforesaid desire to add to the number of levers used in the interlocking devices for their own benefit, that said companies desiring the addition of such levers shall pay the entire cost of such addition, when properly approved by the railroad commission of the State of Illinois. Dated at Springfield this 3d day of July, A. D., 1900. 9 BEFORE THE RAILROAD AND WAREHOUSE COMMISSION OK THE STATE OF ILLINOIS. Chicago & Alton Railroad Company, vs. Terre Haute & Indianapolis Railroad Company and V. T. Malott, Receiver, Protection of crossing at Minier. APPEARANCES : For Petitioner, WM. BROWN, For Respondent, T. J. GOLDEN, Opinion by LINDLY, Chairman. This case was brought before the commission by a petition presented by the Chicago & Alton Railroad company, asking that the grade crossing at Minier in Tazewell county, 111., where the main track of the Chicago & Alton Railroad company crosses the main track of the Terre Haute & Indianapolis Railroad Company, be protected by proper interlocking device and machinery for the protection of the crossing, according to the general laws of the State of Illinois. The petition was properly filed setting forth the facts in the case, asking that the commission notify the said respondent, the Terre Haute & Indian- apolis Railroad company; that they proceed to view the site of said crossing and appoint a time and place for the hearing of the petition, and that there- upon they make a proper order in said matter, apportioning the cost of the construction, operation and maintenance of said plant at this place. Notice was duly given to the Terre Haute & Indianapolis Railroad com- pany of the filing of the petitions by the said Chicago & Alton Railway com- pany, notified the parties of the date fixed by the commission for the viewing of the crossing and the time and place of the hearing of said petition. In accordance with said notice the commission viewed the site of said crossing on the 20th day of June, A. D. 1900, and the case was heard at the office of the commission in Springfield, 111., on the 3d day of July, A. D. 1900, all of the commissioners being present. Upon such hearing statements were made by the said petitioner and re- spondent herein, by their respective counsel, and the facts as existed were agreed upon and submitted to the commission without further evidence. FINDINGS. The commission having taken under advisement the facts as agreed upon by the respective parties hereto, find: That the crossing of said companies at Minier, 111., Is dangerous and should be protected by an interlocking system. It is therefore ordered by the commission that companies, the Chicago & Alton Railway company and the Terre Haute & Indianapolis Railroad com- pany forthwith proceed to protect said crossing at Minier, 111., by an inter- locking system, to be approved by the Railroad and Warehouse Commission of the State of Illinois. 10 It is further ordered by the commission that each of said companies shall pay such proportion of the cost of constructing, erecting and maintaining the said interlocking system and all thereto appertaining as the number of levers that shall operate switches, signals and other parts of said interlocking system in and for the respective tracks 1 of each of said companies shall bear to the whole number of levers required in said interlocking system, and each of said companies shall pay one-half (%) of the cost of operating the said interlocking system. It is further ordered that should either of the companies aforesaid desire to add to the number of levers used in the interlocking device for their own benefit, that said companies desiring the addition of such levers shall pay the entire cost of such addition, when properly approved by the Railroad and Warehouse Commission of the State of Illinois. Dated at Springfield, 111., this 3d day of July, A. D. 1900. BEFORE THE RAILROAD AND WAREHOUSE COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS. Chicago & Alton Railroad Company, vs. Terre Haute & Indianapolis Railroad Company, and V. T. Malott, Receiver. Protection of Crossing at Atlanta. APPEARANCES : WM. BROWN, for Petitioner. T. J. GOLDEN, for Respondent. Opinion by LINDLY, Chairman. The Chicago & Alton Railroad Company filed a petition with the Railroad and Warehouse Commission of Illinois setting forth the fact that they were a corporation doing business in Illinois, and that their track crossed at grade the track of the Terre Haute & Indianapolis Railroad Company at Atlanta, Logan county, 111.; that the petitioner, the said Chicago & Alton Railway company desired to unite with the said Terre Haute & Indianapolis Rail- road company in protecting said crossing with proper devices and appliances, thus securing greater safety to persons and property, and enabling trains to pass said crossing without stopping, but that they were unable to agree with the Terre Haute & Indianapolis Railroad company upon a plan of the same, and that the public good required that said crossing be so protected; and asked that notice be given to said Terre Haute & Indianapolis Railroad com- pany, and filed with the said petition plats showing the location of said tracks, and further prayed that the commission view the site of said crossing, fix a time and place for the hearing of said petition, and enter proper or'ders for the erection of an interlocking system at this point and apportion the cost of the construction, operation and maintenance of the same that each of the parties hereto shall pay. In accordance with the prayer of said petition the proper notice was given to said respondents and the crossing was viewed by the commission on the 20th day of June, A. D. 1900, and the case set for trial on the 3d day of July, A. D. 1900, at which time the evidence was heard, as was also the arguments of the counsel for the respective parties. II FINDINGS. Thereupon after due consideration the commission find: That an inter- locking system is necessary for greater safety to persons and property at said point. ORDER. It is therefore ordered that an interlocking system be constructed, main- tained and operated at said crossing of the Chicago & Alton Railway com- pany and the Terre Haute & Indianapolis Railroad company at Atlanta, in Logan county, in the State of Illinois; and that said companies proceed to protect said crossing at Atlanta, 111., by an interlocking system to be ap- proved according to the statute by the railroad commission of said State. It is further ordered by the commission that each of said companies shall pay such proportion of the cost of construction, erecting and maintaining the said interlocking system and all thereto appertaining as the number of levers that shall operate the switches and signals and other parts of said interlock- ing system in and for the respective tracks of each of said companies shall bear to the whole number of levers required in said interlocking system, and each of said companies shall pay one-half (y 2 ) of the cost of operating the said interlocking system. It is further ordered that should either of the companies aforesaid desire to add to the number of levers used in the interlocking device for their own benefit, that said company desiring the addition of such levers, shall pay the entire cost of such addition, when properly approved by the railroad com- mission of the State of Illinois. Dated at Springfield, 111., this 3rd day of July, A. D., 1900. BEFOBE THE RAILROAD AND WAREHOUSE COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS. Chicago & Alton Railway Company vs. Illinois Central Railroad Company. Petition for protection of crossing at Mason City. APPEARANCES: For Petitioner, WM. BROWN. For Respondent, JOHN G. DRENNAN. Opinion by LINDLY, Chairman. The Chicago & Alton Railway company having failed to secure an agree- ment with the Illinois Central Railroad company, as to the construction of a proper interlocking device, where the main track of the Chicago & Alton Railway crosses the main track of the Illinois Central, at Mason City, in Mason county, Illinois, they filed a petition asking the commission to make proper orders in the case. The commission viewed the crossing, and when the case was set for trial the parties agreed that the board should enter an order for an interlocker at that place ; the board apportioning the cost between the railroads as they saw fit and proper. 12 It is therefore ordered and decreed by the Railroad and Warehouse Com- mission of the State of Illinois, that an interlocking plant be constructed in accordance with the laws of the State, and the rules of said Railroad and Warehouse Comimission, under the supervision of the consulting engineer of said commission, and that the costs of the construction and maintenance of said plant be divided between the Chicago & Alton Railway Company and the Illinois Central Railroad Company, on the basis of the number of levers necessary to control the switches, derails and signals in or adjoining the tracks of each company respectively, and that the expenses of operation of said plant be divided half and half between the two said companies. It is further ordered that should either of the companies aforesaid desire to add to the number of levers used in the interlocking device, for their own benefit, that said company desiring the addition of said levers, shall pay the entire cost of such addition, when properly approved by said commission. Dated at Springfield, this 12th day of December, 1900. BEFORE THE RAILROAD AND WAREHOUSE COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS. Chicago & Alton Railway Company vs. Illinois Central Railroad ConTpany. Protection of Crossing at Lincoln. APPEARANCES : WM. BROWN, for Petitioner. JOHN G. DBENNAN, for Respondent. Opinion by LINDLY, Chairman. The Chicago & Alton Railway Co. filed with the Railroad and Warehouse Commissioners, a petition setting forth the fact that the main track of said railroad crossed at grade the main track of the Illinois Central Railroad Co., at Lincoln, Logan county, Illinois, and that the petitioner desires to unite with the said Illinois Central Railroad Co., in protecting said crossing with proper devices and appliances, thus securing greater safety to persons and property, and enabling trains to pass said crossing without stopping, but that they were unable to agree with the said Illinois Central Railroad Co. upon a plan for the same, and therefore they petitioned the commission to give notice to the said Illinois Central Railroad Company to view the site of said crossing, and appoint a time and place for hearing of the petition asking that a proper order prescribing a proper device and machinery for the pro- tection of said crossing be made. The commissioners viewed the crossing and set the case for hearing, at which time and place the parties agreed that an order should be entered by the railroad commissioners, apportioning the costs of construction, mainte- nance and operation. u It is therefore ordered and decreed by the Railroad and Warehouse Com- mission of the State of Illinois, that an interlocking plant be constructed in accordance with the laws of the State, and the rules of said Railroad and Warehouse Commission, under the supervision of the consulting engineer of said commission, and that the costs of the construction and maintenance of said plant be divided between the Chicago & Alton Railway Co. and the Illi- nois Central Railroad Co. on the basis of the number of levers necessary to control the switches, derails and signals, in or adjoining the tracks of each company respectively, and that the expenses of operation of said plant be divided half and half betweeen the two said companies. It is further ordered that should either of the companies aforesaid desire to add to the number of levers used in the interlocking device for their own benefit, that said company desiring the addition of said levers, shall pay the entire cost of such addition, when properly approved by said commission. Dated at Springfield this 12th day of December, 1900. BEFORE THE RAILROAD AND WAREHOUSE COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS. The People of the State of Illinois on Relation of Siegel Copel, State's At- torney of Saline County, Illinois. vs. Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Railway Company. Debt. Opinion by LINDLY, Chairman. And now come Siegel Copel, State's attorney of Saline county, and Chois- ser, Whitley & Choisser, attorneys for the relator, and also comes the Cleve- land, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Railway Company and enter their ap- pearance herein. And it appearing to the commission that heretofore at the September term, A. D. 1900, of the circuit court of Saline county, in the State of Illinois, the said relator brought his said action against the said de- fendant railroad company to recover certain penalties for alleged discrimina- tions on the line of said railroad betweeen Cairo, 111., and Danville, 111., and particularly discriminations alleged to have occurred in charging a higher rate upon hard wood lumber from the station of Harrisburg, 111., than was charged and received for the same product going in the same direction from Cairo, 111., and being a longer distance by about seventy (70) miles. And it further appears to the commission that the said railroad company does not admit that it has been guilty of unjust discriminations, but claims that the difference in the rate charged between Cairo, 111., and points north of Cairo is not unjust discrimination. Still in order to avoid all controversies with reference to the discriminations charged said railroad company has agreed with the said relator and his attorneys representing the People of the State of Illinois in said suit and consent to a judgment of two thousand (2,000) dollars in full of all alleged discriminations or extortions, and of all claims and charges of extortion and discriminations under the Illinois stat- utes at any and all of its stations on the line of the Cairo division of said railroad company between Cairo and Danville, 111. It further appears to the commission that said suit was brought without the authority and the. consent of the said Railroad and Warehouse Commis- sion. It further appears to the commission that the, original declaration filed in said cause does not sufficiently set up the charges of extortion and discrimi- nation for which recovery is sought to be, had'. It is further ordered that said relator Siegel Cbpel, State's attorney of Saline county, and the said Choisser, Whitley & Choisser, attorneys for said relator, are authorized by the said commission to file an amended declara- tion in said cause sufficiently setting forth such items of extortion and dis- crimination for which recovery might be had. It is further ordered by the Railroad and Warehouse Commission, and con- sent is hereby given by said Railroad and Warehouse Commission that said cause of action be settled by an entry of a judgment therein against the said Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Railway Company for the sum of two thousand (2,000) dollars in full of all penalties arising or accruing by reason of any of the alleged charges of discrimination or extortion set forth in said amended declaration and in full of all charges and claims for extor- tion and discrimination occurring on the said Cairo division of the said Cleve- land, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Railway Company up and to the filing of such amended declaration. It is further ordered by said commission that all attorneys' fees to the attorneys for said relator in said cause of action shall in no wise be charged to the Railroad and Warehouse Commission or any claim presented against the said Railroad and Warehouse Commission for the services of such at- torneys. Dated at Springfield, 111., this 8th day of January, A. D., 1901. BEFOBE THE RAILROAD AND WAREHOUSE COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS. In the matter of the crossing of the Chicago & Alton Railway Company by the Chicago, Peoria & St. Louis Railway Company at Bridge Junction, St. Glair county, III. This cause comes before the commission on the objection of the Chicago & Alton Railway Company to the crossing of their tracks at grade by the Chicago, Peoria & St. Louis Railway Company. Objection was made July 23, 1901. Notice sent to the Chicago, Peoria & St. Louis Railway Company on that date. Place of crossing viewed July 30, 1901. Case continued at re- quest of Chicago, Peoria & St. Louis Railway Company to Sept. 7, 1901. At that time it was learned that the Chicago, Peoria & St. Louis Railway Com- pany had gone ahead and finished up the crossing and was using it. Hear- ing had in the office of the Railroad and Warehouse Commission, at Spring- field, on that date, and continued for decision until Nov. 8, 1901. Further hearing on said date. The Chicago, Peoria & St. Louis Railway Company on that date filed a motion to dismiss the proceedings for want of jurisdiction, which motion was -overruled, for the reason that it came too late, the case having been heard without objection up to that time. Cause continued until Nov. 19, 1901, and all parties met at Bridge Junction for the purpose of trying to make a final settlement. All parties interested were present and the board notified the parties interested that they would require an overhead crossing. Cause continued until Dec. 3, 1901, to allow railroads to present plans for the overhead crossing, at the regular meeting of the Railroad and Warehouse Commission at their office at Springfield. 15 The proposed crossing crosses from east to west over the Wabash railroad, the Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis railroad, the Terminal Rail- road Association, of St. Louis, and the Chicago & Alton railroad, all of which are main tracks of the above mentioned roads. The point where this road crosses the terminal is at, or near, where the other three railroads connect with the terminal with their passenger trains going into and coming out of St. Louis over the Eads bridge, the larger portion of the passenger business going into St. Louis over the Eads bridge and the terminal tracks from the north. The Chicago, Peoria & St. Louis Railroad Company have recently built a new freight house, and are building several miles of switches and tracks in their yard, directly west of where this proposed crossing is. They are elevating all the tracks from seven (7) to twenty (20) feet above the natural surface of the ground; and in our opinion there will be no trouble for them to elevate the one track to such a distance that they can cross over the above mentioned tracks by an overhead crossing, and in that way save all danger of collision at the grade crossing. The Chicago, Peoria & St. Louis Railway are doing the switching across their track, as now located, for the Illinois Central Railroad Company as well as for themselves, and they themselves have yards on each side of the pro- posed crossing, where there is a constant switching back and forth from one yard to the other, and which is necessarily very dangerous by reason of the great number of trains crossing their tracks at this point, and will unneces- sarily, impede and endanger the travel and transportation over the Chicago & Alton Railway track. It is claimed by the Chicago, Peoria & St. Louis Railway that it would be a great hardship on them to have to erect and maintain an overhead crossing. ThiSj of course, is true; but when we consider the great number of accidents at grade crossings, the great expense of putting in and maintaining inter- lockers, we are of the opinion that within the next ten years, if the said com- pany erect and maintain an overhead crossing, they will have saved more than sufficient money to pay the entire cost of said overhead crossing, by reason of having no accident and no flagman or lockmen to pay. Therefore, in view of the above facts, It is hereby ordered by the board that the Chicago, Peoria & St. Louis Railroad Company have leave to cross the track of the Chicago & Alton Rail- way Company at Bridge Junction, where their tracks have been placed since the beginning of this proceeding, with the overhead crossing; that the said overhead crossing shall leave twenty-two (22) feet in the clear from the top of the rails of the Chicago & Alton Railway Company to the lower part of the superstructure of the said overhead crossing of the Chicago, Peoria & St. Louis Railway Company. It is further ordered that the said Chicago, Peoria & St. Louis Railway Company shall pay the entire cost of the construction and future mainte- nance of said crossing. It is further ordered that the Chicago, Peoria & St. Louis Railway Company pay the cost and expenses of the commission incurred upon this petition. It is further ordered that the Chicago, Peoria & St. Louis Railway Company be permitted to use the tracks which have been put in by them since the com- mencement of this proceeding, and after this commission has taken jurisdic- tion of this case, for the purpose of carrying material across the tracks of the Chicago & Alton Railway Company to raise their grade 'sufficiently for the approaches to the crossing over the Chicago & Alton Railway Company, pro- vided such use shall not exceed three (3) months from the date of this order. And that this case is continued until the regular meeting of this commission on the first Tuesday after the first Monday of March, 1902. Dated at Springfield, Illinois, Dec. 3, 1901. 16 BEFORE THE RAILROAD AND WAREHOUSE COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Company Alpheus P. Goddard, Alpheus J. Goddard, and The Freeport General Electric Company. Crossing Case. In the matter of the crossing of the Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Rail- way tracks by Alpheus P. Goddard and Alpheus J. Goddard and the Freeport General Electric Company, with their electric railroad tracks, on Shawnee street, extended near the eastern limits of the city of Freeport. APPEARANCES: C. B. KEELER. Attorney for Complainant. ALPHEUS P. GODDARU, for Defendants. Opinion of Commission, by JAMES S. NEVILLE, Chairman. This was a petition filed by the Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Company, alleging that defendants were a railroad company, and that they were attempting to cross their tracks on Shawnee street, near the eastern, limits of the city of Freeport, with a railroad track at grade; and that they objected to such crossing, and asked that the commission view the proposed crossing and decide what was the proper place and mode of crossing for said defendants. Petition sets up that the defendants are common carriers for the transpor- tation of passengers and freight on their railroad, to be operated by electric power in and through the city of Freeport, and over the proposed crossing of the Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway on said Shawnee street. Commission viewed the proposed place of crossing, with complainant's attorney and superintendent, and Alpheus J. Goddard, defendant, on Nov. 21, 1901. The case was set for trial Dec. 5, 1901, in the office of the Railroad and Warehouse Commission, in Chicago, and defendants notified. Dec. 4, 1901, the defendants, Alpheus P. Goddard and Alpheus J. Goddard, filed in the office of the Railroad and Warehouse Commission at Springfield the following plea: "The above named defendants,' Alpheus P. Goddard and Alpheus J. God- dard, for answer to the complainant in this proceeding, respectfully state: "First That they deny that the said Railroad and Warehouse Commission of the State of Illinois have any jurisdiction in the premises. "Second That said defendants say that they have a meritorious defense to the said petition, and save all the rights thereof the same as if the same had been set forth. Wherefore the defendants pray that the complaint be dis- missed." It must be contended by the defendants, under their plea to the jurisdic- tion, that the Railroad and Warehouse Commission have no jurisdiction over electric railroads, or that the defendants are not a railroad company within the meaning of the statute. The statute provides that hereafter any railroad company desiring to cross with its tracks the main line of another railroad company shall construct the crossing at such a place and in such a manner as will not unnecessarily im- 17 pede or endanger the travel or transportation upon the railroad so crossed. If, in any case, objection is made to the place or mode of crossing proposed by the company desiring the same, either party may apply to the Board of Railroad and Warehouse Commissioners, and it shall be their duty to view the ground, give all parties interested an opportunity to be heard, and after full investigation, with due regard for the safety of life and property, the board shall give a decision, describing the place where and the manner in which said crossing shall be made. But in all cases the compensation to be paid for the property actually required for the crossing, and all damages resulting therefrom, shall be determined in the manner provided by law, in case the parties fail to agree. It cannot, under our view of this case, be insisted that an electric railroad company is not a railroad company within the meaning of the statute. The Supreme Court of this State, in the case of Moses et al. against the P., Ft. W. & C. R. R. Co., 21 111., 523, hold that street railroads are railroads. Again, in the city of Chicago against Evans et al., 24 111., 56, the same rule is laid down. In the case of the Electric Railroad Company against the Rapid Transit Company, 24 New York, 566, it was held that an electric railway company was, within the meaning of the statute (very similar to our statute), a rail- road company. The Chicago Northwestern Railway Company against The Electric Railway Company, 95 Wis., 561, it was held that an electric railway company was, within the meaning of the statute, a railroad company. The former Illinois Railroad and Warehouse Commission, page 337, De- cisions and Opinions of the Railroad and Warehouse Commission of Illinois, held that an electric railroad was a railroad within the meaning of the statute. The same question has been decided by the Circuit Court of the United States, in a very late decision, in the case of Mallot against The City of Col- linsville, 108 Federal Report, 313, and I can see no reason why we should not follow those decisions. A railroad company organized as this company, for the purpose of transporting both passengers and freight, most certainly is in the same line of business (that of common carrier) as any railroad company operating by steam power, and, in our view of the meaning of the statute, is a railroad. It may be insisted that the respondents are not a railroad company within the meaning of the statute for the reason that the franchise is granted to Alpheus P. Goddard and Alpheus J. Goddard, as individuals. But, in view of the fact that they are to operate their road in connection with the General Electric Company, a railroad operated by a corporation, and that their said road is to be a part of that system, and in view of the further fact that the statute, section one, provides that hereafter any railroad company (not a corporation) desiring to cross the main track of another railroad company shall construct its crossings in such a manner as not to unnecessarily impede or endanger the travel of said road. We are of the opinion, and so hold, that for the purpose of this Act, that any person, company, or corporation desiring to cross another railroad track with a railroad track must cross it at such place and in such a way that it will not unnecessarily impede or endanger the travel of the railroad company so crossed; and that it will not unneces- sarily endanger the lives or property of the public, regardless of whether it is a railroad corporation or an individual, the law applying to the railroad itself, and not to the owners or operators. This question has been settled to our entire satisfaction in the case of Chi- cago Dock & Canal Co. against L. P. Garrity et al., 115 111., 155, on page 164. In that case the Supreme Court says: "The city council or board of trustees shall have no power to grant the use of, or the right to lay down, any railroad tracks in any street of the city, to any steam or horse railroad company, except upon a petition of the owners of the land representing more than one-half of the frontage of the street, or so much thereof as is sought to be used for railroad purposes. It is very clear that 'natural persons' are here within the intention, although not within 2 O i8 the letter of .the Act, for the injury against which protection is intended to be afforded is the laying of railway tracks in the streets. By whom the tracks shall be laid and the cars thereon operated is, manifestly, of no consequence whatever. The same result, in all respects, will follow the laying of railway tracks in the streets and operating cars thereon by individuals as will follow the laying of them by corporations. The use of the word 'company,' we have no doubt, was simply because such tracks are almost always laid and operated by companies. The clause should be read as including both cor- porations and individuals." On December 5th the parties met at the office of the Railroad and Ware- house Commission, in Chicago, for a hearing, C. B. Keeler representing the complainant. Alpheus J. Goddard appeared in person and asked to be ex- cosed from taking any part in the trial. Thereupon the commission found for the complainant on the plea to the jurisdiction, holding that the commission had jurisdiction over electric rail- roads, under the statute providing for railroad crossings, the same as over steam railroads; and holding that the defendants are a railroad company within the meaning of the statute, and proceeded to hear the ; evidence. The evidence shows that the proposed crossing of the complainant's road by the defendants' electric road is at the foot of a very deep grade from the south, to-wit: 100 feet to the mile; that it is within 90 feet of the embank- ment of the Illinois Central Railway, which is about 20 feet high, that abso- lutely shuts off all view of trains coming from the north, which pass under the Illinois Central Railway within 90 feet of Shawnee street and the proposed crossing by the said electric railway over the Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul railway; that trains coming from the north and crossing under the Illinois Central Railway cannot be seen by a person standing on the Chicago, Mil- waukee & St. Paul track at the proposed place of crossing until they are within 150 feet of the crossing; that a car on the electric track 25 feet north from the proposed crossing cannot be seen by an engineer coming from the north on the Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway, until they are within about 50 feet of the crossing; that the grades of the roads of both parties descend to the proposed point of crossing; and for the above reasons it is necessarily a very dangerous place of crossing. The evidence shows that an electric road comes east on Empire street, which is about 1,000 feet south of the proposed crossing, to Bauscher street; thence south to Adams street on Bauscher street; thence northwest to Chip- peway street on Adams street; thence north to Shawnee street on Chippeway street; thence east on Shawnee street across the Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway to Arcade avenue; thence north under the Illinois Central rail- way tracks to Grand avenue. The intersection of Bauscher and Adams streets is within a very short distance of the crossing of Adams street over the Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway, which is by an overhead bridge, and the commission are of the opinion that the proper place to cross is over a bridge on Adams street or between Shawnee street and Adams street by an overhead crossing. In this case the Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Company objected, as provided by the statute. The commission have given notice to the defend- ants; have viewed the crossing, as provided for by law, and have heard the evidence of the objectors to the proposed place of crossing and have given all parties interested an opportunity to be heard, and the board, after full inves- tigation of all the facts, and a thorough inspection of the ground, find that the proposed crossing is at an unnecessarily dangerous place; that it will unnecessarily impede and endanger the travel over the complainant's rail- road, and that there is within so short a distance a place of crossing where the defendants' road can be put over the road of the complainant, and thereby prevent any danger that could or would arise from the grade crossing; pre- vent any unnecessary delay to the complainant company by reason of a grade crossing, and be far better for the defendants' own road, with very little more expense than the proposed crossing. And for the above reasons, we shall hold that the proposed place of cross- ing is unnecessarily dangerous, and will unnecessarily impede and endanger 19 the travel of the complainant's company, and that the proper place of cross- ing is by an overhead crossing at the intersection of Adams street and the Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Company, or between Shawnee street and Adams street. It is therefore ordered by the commission, that the respondents, Alpheus P. Goddard and Alpheus J. Goddard and the General Electric Company of Freeport, a company erecting a railway at Freeport, have leave to cross with its tracks by an overhead crossing on Adams street, over the tracks of the Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway, and they are ordered not to cross at grade on Shawnee street; that said overhead crossing shall leave 22 feet in the clear from the tops of the rails of the Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Company to the lower part of the superstructure of the said over- head crossing of the defendants' company. It is further ordered that the said Alpheus P. Goddard and Alpheus J. Goddard and the General Electric Company, railway company, pay the entire costs of the construction and maintenance of the said crossing of their said railway over the Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway on said Adams street. It is further .ordered, that the said Alpheus P. Goddard and Alpheus J. Goddard and the General Electric Company of Freeport, railroad company, pay the cost of the commission in this proceeding. Dated at Springfield, 111., Dec. 11, 1901. BEFORE THE RAILROAD AND WAREHOUSE COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS. The Aurora, Elgin and Chicago Railway Company, vs. The -Suburban Railroad Company, Chicago Terminal Transfer Rr R. Co. The Lake Street Elevated R. R. Co. and The Chicago & Harlem Ry. Co. To the Railroad and Warehouse Commission of the State of Illinois: Your petitioner, The Aurora, Elgin & Chicago Railway Company, respect- fully represents unto your honorable board, that it is a railroad corporation organized and existing under the provisions of an Act of the Legislature of the State of 'Illinois, relating to the incorporation of railroad companies, ap- proved and in force March 1, 1872, and Acts amendatory thereof, and that it has the right as such railroad corporation to acquire property for and to con- struct and operate its railroad, from the city of Aurora, Kane county, 111., through the counties of Kane, DuPage, and Cook, and the cities, towns and villages situated in such counties, to the city of Chicago, Cook county, 111., also certain branch lines of railroad to the city of Batavia and the city of Elgin, 111. Your petitioner further represents unto your honorable board that it has obtained the necessary grants and ordinances from the various municipalities through which its said railroad will be operated and maintained, including the village of Harlem, the town of Cicero, and the city of Chicago, all in Cook county, Illinois; that it has purchased and acquired the private property for its right of way from the city of Aurora to said city of Chicago, including its entire right of way through the village of Harlem, the town of Cicero and into the city of Chicago, with the exception that it has not yet acquired the right to cross the private right of way and tracks of the respondent, the Chi- cago Terminal Transfer Railroad Company, in the village of Harlem. Cook county, 111., at the location designated upon the maps hereto attached and 20 hereinafter referred to as "Crossing No. 1;" said tracks of respondent, the Chicago Terminal Transfer Railroad Company, at said location being oper- ated by the respondent, the Suburban Railroad Company, under lease. Your petitioner further represents unto your honorable board that said respondents severally claim to be railroad corporations, organized and exist- ing under the same Acts of the Legislature of the State of Illinois, as peti- tioner; that in the construction and maintenance of petitioner's railroad it will be necessary for it to cross at grade at three points, the lines of railway operated by respondent, the Suburban Railroad Company, with two or more tracks, and to hang overhead and place underground the necessary wires, connections and apparatus, for the operation of the same, and that for the purpose of more particularly describing the location and surroundings of such crossings, your petitioner attaches hereto and makes a part hereof, a blue print map, marked "Exhibit A" upon which the route of petitioner is colored yellow and the particular points of crossing in question, are within red rings designated respectively as "Crossing No. 1," "Crossing No. 2," and "Crossing No. 3." Your petitioner further represents unto your honorable board that "Cross- ing No. 1" occurs at the point east of Concordia cemetery and just north of Harrison street if extended, in the village of Harlem, Cook county, Illinois, where petitioner intersects the branch line of the Chicago Terminal Transfer Railroad company, which branch line of said respondent extends from Ran- dolph street southerly to Harrison street if extended, and thence easterly along the line of Harrison street if extended to Desplaines avenue, and con- sists of a single track with one side track or siding at the point where peti- tioner proposes to cross the same as aforesaid; that said branch line is not operated by respondent, the Chicago Terminal Transfer Railroad Company as a steam railroad, but is being operated by the respondent, the Suburban Railroad Company, for the carriage of passengers only by means of trolly cars; said respondent, the Suburban Railroad Company, claiming the right to so operate upon said tracks by virtue of a lease from the Chicago Ter- minal Transfer Railroad Company. Your petitioner further represents unto your honorable board that "Cross- ing No. 2" as designated upon "Exhibit A," occurs in Harrison street, in the town of Cicero, Cook county, Illinois, at the point where petitioner's railway crosses said Harrison street, between Oak Park avenue and Euclid avenue, in the town of Cicero, Cook county, Illinois. Your petitioner further represents unto your honorable board that "Cross- ing No. 3" occurs at the point in West Fifty-second avenue in the city of Chicago, 111., where petitioner's railway crosses said West Fifty-second ave- nue, between Harrison street and Flourney street. Your petitioner further represents unto your honorable board that said re- spondent, The Suburban Railroad Company, is operating a line of double track street railway in and along Harrison street, at the location referred to as "Crossing No. 2," and is likewise operating a line of double track street railway in and along Fifty-second avenue at the location herein referred to as "Crossing No. 3." That that portion of said respondent's street railway line operated at Crossing No. 2 is now in the town of Cicero, Cook county, Illinois, and that that portion of its street railway operated at the location designated as "Crossing No. 3," is now in the city of Chicago, 111., but that both of said street railway lines were originally in the town of Cicero, Cook county, Illinois, and respondent claims the right to maintain and operate said lines of street railway, under grant from the said town of Cicero, by an ordinance passed July 19, 1885, and that all of said street railway lines are operated by electric trolly cars. Your petitioner further represents unto your honorable board that it has caused to be prepared and attached hereto, and made a part hereof, a blue print map, marked "Exhibit B," which shows in detail the tracks of the respondent, The Chicago Terminal Transfer Railroad Company operated by respondent, The Suburban Railroad Company, as aforesaid, at the location herein referred to as "Crossing No. 1," and the manner in which petitioner proposes to cross the same; that at said location the tracks of petitioner would cross the single track of the Chicago Terminal Transfer Railroad 21 Company, and would cross the switch and siding of said respondent at the southern point of such switch or siding, and it would be necessary for peti- tioner to lengthen out said siding so as to carry the point of said switch and siding over the proposed tracks of petitioner, and petitioner has indicated on said blue print map, marked "Exhibit B," by dotted lines, the proposed change in such switch and siding; that "Exhibit C" and "Exhibit D," which are also attached hereto and made a part of this petition, show respectively in detail the location of the street railway tracks of respondent, The Subur- ban Railroad, Company, and the manner in which petitioner proposes crossing same, at the location known as "Crossing No. 2" and "Crossing No. 3." Your petitioner further represents unto your honorable board that the only interest which the respondent, The Chicago Terminal Transfer Railroad Com- pany has in this proceeding is that of the lessor of its branch line of railroad to respondent, The Suburban Railroad Company, at the location known as "Crossing No. 1." Your petitioner further represents unto your honorable board that the respondents, The Lake Street Elevated Railroad Company and The Chicago & Harlem Railway Company, claim to have some interest in the lines of railway operated by The Suburban Railway Company, the precise nature of which, however, is unknown to your petitioner. Your petitioner further represents unto your honorable board that it pro- posed to said respondents to make 'said three crossings at its own expense, and to furnish all frogs, special work and materials necessary for each of said crossings, and to perform all the labor and put the same in position, and to keep up and maintain such crossings, frogs, special work and materials, and also to stop its cars and trains before attempting to go over said crossings. And while the proposed place and mode of crossing by your petitioner, in each of said three instances, would not unnecessarily impede and endanger travel or transportation, yet said respondents object to the places and modes of crossing proposed by your petitioner aforesaid. Wherefore your petitioner prays that this honorable board will give notice to the said Suburban Railway Company, the Chicago Terminal Transfer Rail- road Company, the Lake Street Elevated Railway Company and the Chicago & Harlem Railway Company, all of which are made respondents hereto, and proceed to view the sites of said several crossings, and upon investigation and hearing pursuant to the statutes and to the rules and practices of this honorable board, in such cases made and provided, make such order with reference to the place, mode and manner of crossing at the three particular points referred to in this petition and its exhibits, as to this honorable board shall seem meet and proper, and for such other relief as may be appropriate. THE AURORA, ELGIN & CHICAGO RAILWAY COMPANY, By F. B. BICKNELL, Manager. ALBFRT J. HOPKINS, S. P. SHOPE, Solicitors. 22 BEFORE THE RAILROAD AND WAREHOUSE COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS. The Aurora, Elgin & Chicago Railway Company, vs. The Suburban Railroad Co., Chicago Terminal Transfer Co., Lake Street Elevated R. R. Co., and the Chicago & Harlem Ry. Co. Petition for Three Crossings, February, 1902. -. APPEARANCES : SHOPE, MATHISS, ZANE & WEBBER; HOPKINS, DOLPH & SCOTT, for Petitioner. CLABENCE A. KNIGHT, for the Lake Street Elevated R. R. Co. JESSE BARTON, for the Chicago Terminal Transfer Co. The petition in this case alleges, and it is conceded by the respondents, that all of said companies are railroad companies within the meaning of the statute, and that this board has jurisdiction of the companies and of the subject matter. The only question then for consideration is the question of crossing. Crossing No. 1 is the crossing of the petitioners' tracks over the tracks of the Chicago Terminal Transfer Co., at a point on the east side of the Con- cordia cemetery, just north of Harrison street, if extended. This crossing is within a few hundred feet of the end of the track of the Chicago Terminal Transfer Co., which is a single track, and the evidence in this case shows that at the present time there are very few cars operated on said track and very few people ride on the cars over the proposed place of crossing. This board has viewed the place of crossing and has taken evidence, which is given very fully in the record, as to the location of the ground, and from the evidence taken, as well as from the observation of the commission at the time of viewing the proposed place of crossing, it seems certain that there is no special reason for an overhead crossing at this place at present. It is on a very level piece of ground, with nothing to obstruct the view for several hundred feet each way, and very few cars operated over the road of either company at present; and while this commission very much desires that all railroad crossings should be made overhead or under highway crossings, from the evidence and the surroundings in this case it is very clear that it would be a great hardship on a new company to put an overhead crossing at this place, and in our opinion it is not necessary at the present time, and should it at any future time become necessary, this commission will retain the right by the order in this case to order an overhead crossing. Crossing No. 2 is the proposed crossing near Harrison street in the town of Cicero, Cook county, Illinois, of the Suburban Railroad Company, where the said company is operating a double track railway in and along said Harrison street. This proposed crossing crosses the tracks of the Suburban Company where they are used very frequently by cars on each track running in oppo- site directions and hauling a great many passengers. During the racing season they run a great many cars to the race-tracks and haul thousands of passengers each way every day. While this is on a very level piece of ground and nothing to obstruct the view from either side, on account of the great amount of travel on the Suburban Railroad tracks, in our opinion it is neces- sary to have an overhead crossing, and that a grade crossing will unneces- sarily impede and endanger the property of the respondent company and the lives of its patrons, and for that reason the order in this case will be made so that an overhead crossing will be built at crossing No. 2. 23 Crossing No. 3, which is on Fifty-second street, where the Aurora, Elgin & Chicago Ry. Co., petitioners, propose to cross the Suburban Company's tracks, is within a very short distance of where the ordinance of the town of Harlem provides that the Aurora, Elgin & Chicago Railway Company shall come to grade to connect with the Metropolitan road, and if this commission should order an overhead crossing, it would mean an abandonment of their proposed connection and would work a forfeiture of the franchise to the Aurora, Elgin & Chicago Ry. Co. through the town of Harlem. We regret very much that the location and grade of the Metropolitan road is not such that the Aurora, Elgin & Chicago Ry. Co. could connect with it by an overhead elevated connection and thus put in an overhead crossing on Fifty-second street, but in view of the fact that it is on a very level piece of ground and nothing to obstruct the view, and the further fact that the ordinance granting the franchise to the company through the town of Harlem provides that within twenty years from the granting of the franchise the said railway com- pany shall elevate its tracks, we are of the opinion that there is no present necessity for an overhead crossing beyond what there is at any other crossing on the open prairie, and the order in this case will provide for an interlocker to be put in on Fifty-second street crossing No. 3 and to be operated by the Aurora, Elgin & Chicago Railway Company, and that at any timte hereafter when, in the opinion of this commission, it is necessary to have an overhead crossing, that this commission reserves the right to order the same, and the company accepting the right to cross at grade accepts it on the above condi- tions, that whenever ordered to put in an overhead crossing by the then Railroad Commission of the State of Illinois, that they shall do so at their own expense within a reasonable time, to be fixed by the commission. The Aurora, Elgin & Chicago Ry. Co., vs. The Suburban Railroad Co., The Lake Street Elevated R. R. Co., and the Chicago Terminal Transfer R. R. Co. Petition for Crossings. And now, on the 21st day of February, A. D. 1902, come the petitioner in this cause, by Shope, Mathis, Zane & Webber and Hopkins, Dolph & Scott, its attorneys, and the Suburban Railroad Company, and the Lake Street Elevated Railroad Company, by Clarence A. Knight, their attorney, and the respondent, The Chicago Terminal Transfer Company, by Jesse Barton, its attorney, and the commission now determines that it has full jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter hereof, and the commission having listened to the testimony produced by the parties hereto, and fully examined the exhibits and listened to the argument of counsel representing the respec- tive parties hereto, and now being fully advised in the premises find as follows : The said petitioner and the respondents will, for convenience, be herein- after designated as follows: The petitioner "Aurora Company." The Suburban Railroad Company "Suburban Company." The Lake Street Elevated Company "Elevated Company." The Chicago Terminal Transfer Company "Terminal Company." A. That the petitioner filed herein its petition to cross the lines of railroad of the respondents, the Suburban Company, Elevated Company and the Ter- minal Company at the points of crossing shown on "Exhibit A" submitted 34 with said petition and indicated at said points and numbered thereon as Xos. 1, 2 and 3 ; that at the hearing of this cause the Aurora Company changed the point of crossing No. 1, as shown and indicated by the blue print hereto attached and marked "Exhibit E." B. That the Terminal Company is the owner of and the Suburban Com- pany the lessee of the railroad at point of crossing marked No. 1, as shown on "Exhibit E," and that the Elevated Company is the lessee of the Subur- ban Company of said railroad at crossing No. 1. C. That the Suburban Company is the owner of the railroad at crossings Nos. 2 and 3, said railroad at crossing No. 2 being subject to a lease to the Elevated Company. D. That the proposed manner of crossing at No. 2 by the Aurora Company, as shown in their petition, would make said crossing dangerous and would impede travel and transportation upon the said line of railroad of the Subur- ban company, and that objection has been made to the mode of crossing proposed by the petitioner, and that the petitioner has applied to this com- mission to prescribe the place where and the manner in which said crossings Nos. 1, 2 and 3 shall be made and the commission having viewed the ground at crossings Nos. 1, 2 and 3 and given all parties interested an opportunity to be heard, and having due regard for the safety of life and property, does hereby make and order as follows: First That said Aurora Company shall be permitted and* is hereby author- ized to cross the track or tracks and right of way of the Terminal Company and the Suburban Company and the Elevated Company as lessees at crossing No. 1 at the place and in the manner and mode shown in "Exhibit E," subject to the provisions, conditions and limitations hereinafter set forth with refer- ence to said crossing. (a) The necessary frogs, switches and appurtenances shall be put in at said point of crossing No. 1 solely at the expense of the Aurora Company, under the supervision and direction of the engineer of the Suburban Com- pany. Said crossing shall be so placed at No. 1 as not to interfere with the operation of the cars of the Suburban Company or the Elevated Company over the tracks during the progress of said work. Provided the said crossing at No. 1 shall be what is commonly known as a standard double track cross- ing with an open throat for both the Aurora Company and the Suburban Company. (b) The Aurora Company having stated before the commission that it intended to operate its said railroad by electricity, adopting a third rail sys- tem for said purpose, such third or live rail to so operate said railroad may be placed with protection boards upon the right of way of the Suburban Company and the Terminal Company at any point not nearer than ten feet of the outer rails of the track of the Suburban Company at said point of crossing, as the same now exists or may hereafter be laid. (c) The Aurora Company shall have the right to place and bury its electric wires underneath the right of way of the Suburban Company at said crossing No. 1, within a point not exceeding three feet outside of the two tracks of the Aurora Company, and shall so place said electric wires in con- duits, or in such manner as may be directed by the Suburban Company, so as not to interfere in any manner whatsoever with the operation of the railroad of the Suburban Company and Terminal Company at said point. (d) The Aurora Company shall pay to or keep said Suburban Company, said Elevated Company and said Terminal Company harmless from any loss or damage to persons or property that may occur or happen at said crossing by reason of the grant of this permit. (e) The Aurora Company shall at all times and on all occasions before proceeding to cross the track or tracks of the Suburban Company at crossing No. 1, from either direction, stop its cars or trains within 50 feet of the point of crossing and send some fit and competent person to see that the crossing is free and clear and safe for the passage of the cars or trains of the Aurora Company or its lessees, and in no case shall said Aurora Com- pany have the prior right of way over said crossing, and in all cases the Aurora Company's cars or trains shall refrain from crossing at said point 25 when Suburban car or a car of its lessee is proceeding toward said crossing and within two hundred (200) feet thereof. (f) The Aurora Company shall at all times keep and maintain said cross- ing in perfect condition and repair and pay the whole and entire expense and cost thereof, and in case it shall fail so to do, the Suburban company or the Terminal company, or their respective lessees, shall be authorized so to do and the Aurora company shall promptly pay on demand the entire cost and expense thereof. (g) Said point of crossing at No. 1 shall be considered and treated as a junction of the said two railroads. (h) The detail and drawings for said crossing No. 1 shall be submitted to the engineer of the Suburban company for his approval before the same shall be placed at the crossing: Provided, In case the engineer of the said Subur- ban company shall not approve said plans or drawings within one day after submission to him, the same shall then be subject to the approval of the chairman of this commission. (i) The foregoing provisions with reference to crossing No. 1 are each and all subject to the right of the commission hereafter to order at said point, such other overhead crossing or protection as it may deem advisable at the expense of the Aurora company. (j) In case the Suburban company shall see fit to change the alignment of its present track or tracks the entire expense of so changing the same shall be borne by the Suburban company. Second That said Aurora company shall be permitted to and is hereby authorized to place at crossing No. 2 a temporary double track crossing, subject to the provisions as hereinafter contained, with reference to said crossing No. 2. (a) Said crossing No. 2 shall be constructed and placed at said point of crossing, subject to the same terms, provisions, conditions, limitations and restrictions as herein contained with reference to crossing No. 1. (b) The said temporary crossing No. 2 shall be so placed and constructed as not to interfere with the construction of an overhead crossing as herein provided. (c) The foregoing provisions with reference to temporary crossing No. 2 are each and all subject to the provisions hereinafter contained with refer- ence to the overhead crossing at said point. Third The said Aurora company shall be and is hereby permitted to cross the Suburban company at crossing No. 3 subject to the following provisions, conditions, limitations and restrictions, viz.: (a) The said Aurora company shall place at said crossing No. 3 a half interlocking device by which the right-of-way shall be given to the Suburban cars or trains over said point of crossing, and the Aurora company's cars or trains, or its lessees, shall at all times stop to be interlocked before proceed- ing across said crossing, and such interlocking device to be so constructed as to derail the cars of the Aurora company. The plans and specifications for such interlocking device at said point of crossing to be submitted to the engineer of the Suburban company and to the consulting engineer of this commission for their approval, and in case they shall not approve the same within five days after such presentation, then the same shall be referred to the chairman of this commission for his ap- proval. (b) The Aurora company shall not operate its cars or trains over said crossing until said interlocking device shall have been first installed: Pro- vided, said Aurora company shall have the right to cross at said crossing temporarily, until the installation of said interlocking device, as hereinafter provided, subject to all the provisions with reference to crossing No. 1. (c) Said Aurora company shall be liable to the Suburban company for all loss or damage to persons or property that may occur by reason of the per- mission for said grade crossing, as aforesaid, at said point No. 3. (d) The Suburban cars or trains shall at all times have the preference of the right-of-way over said point of crossing No. 3. 26 (e) In case a Suburban car or train, or a car or train of its lessee, shall be proceeding northwardly, and on the viaduct, about nine hundred (900) feet south of said point of crossing, the cars or trains of the Aurora company shall be interlocked until such car or train shall safely pass said crossing: Pro- vided, said Aurora company, in order to avoid waiting for a car or train of the Suburban company, or its lessee, as provided in said clause (e), may install a full interlocking device, in which case the foregoing provision as to clause (e) shall not apply. Fourth It is further ordered that said Aurora company shall, on or before Jan. 1, 1903, as a condition of granting this permission to construct a tem- porary crossing at No. 2, cause to be constructed at said point an overhead crossing in such a manner that the bottom or lower chord of the girders sup- porting the tracks over the tracks of the Suburban company shall be 14 feet above the top of the rails of the track or tracks of the Suburban company as now laid and under the general plans and specifications herewith submit- ted and approved by the commission and made a part of this order, and here- with filed with the commission as "Exhibit Z." Provided, that while and during the time said Aurora company shall be engaged in the work of elevating said tracks at said point it shall not interfere with the operation of the cars or trains of the Suburban company, or its les- sees, over said track at crossing No. 2, and that when the work shall have been completed, or prior thereto, the tracks of the Suburban company may be changed sufficiently so as to leave a clear head room of 14 feet; such change of location to be made as hereinafter provided: Provided, upon notice by the Aurora company that it is ready to proceed with the erection of said over- head crossing, the cars or trains of the Suburban company, or its lessee, shall cease operating at said point of crossing No. 2 during the progress of said work, not to exceed a period of 30 days: Provided, however, the Aurora com- pany shall not give such notice prior to Nov. 1, 1902, and in no event shall the operation of the cars of the Suburban company be interfered with for a longer period of time than 30 days. (a) The Aurora company shall at all times, at its own expense, keep and maintain in good repair and condition the said overhead structure. (b) The Suburban company and the Terminal company shall have the right to attach underneath said overhead structure all such electric wires, cables, electric feeders and other electric appurtenances as it may deem ad- visable, and use the said overhead structure so far as it may deem necessary for the purpose of operating said railroad. (c) The Suburban company shall, and all parties hereto consent, change its present tracks and right-of-way at crossing No. 2 in the manner shown on general plans herewith submitted for such overhead crossing, and shall make such change on or before Nov. 1, 1902. The top rails of the track when so relaid to be at the same height as the present rails are now laid, so as to leave the clear head room between the tops of the rails when so laid and the over- head structure to be erected by the Aurora company 14 feet, as herein pre- scribed. Said work of so changing the Suburban company's tracks must be done prior to the time when the Aurora company is ready to proceed with the work of said overhead crossing at No. 2. The Suburban company to have the right to construct, maintain and operate its road over said changed location, as shown in said plans indicating such changed location as ordered by the commission, and shall at all times have sufficient clearance for the passage of its cars over its tracks along, upon and over the right-of-way where said tracks are laid at said new location. (d) The said overhead work to be completed on or before Jan. 1, 1903, un- less the chairman of this commission shall, for good cause, extend the time of completion or the contractors shall be delayed by strikes, accidents or other causes interfering with the progress of the work. (e) In case said Aurora company shall fail to comply with any one of the terms, conditions, limitations and restrictions contained in this order as to such temporary crossing at No. 2, or shall fail to complete the overhead cross- ing as herein provided and within the time as herein fixed for crossing No. 2, 27 or shall fail to place said interlocking device at crossing No. 3 before Oct. 1, 1902, then the Suburban company shall have and is hereby authorized to take up and remove the said crossings' of the Aurora company and all the rails, ties and appurtenances upon the right-of-way of the Suburban company at either crossing Nos. 2 or 3. Fifth The respondents hereby, before this commission, agree that if the Aurora company shall faithfully and fully carry out and perform each and every of its obligations, duties and conditions in this order prescribed, that they will waive all proceedings to acquire said right of crossing under the Eminent Domain law of this State; otherwise, in case the Aurora company shall fail to comply in every respect with this order, then it shall acquire the right to maintain said crossing by virtue of condemnation proceedings. Sixth The commission hereby reserves to itself jurisdiction of all the par- ties and subject matter hereof until the full completion of the matters and things set forth for the purpose of carrying into full force and effect the terms and provisions of this order, and the right to enter upon, by its agents or employes, the right of way of the respondents herein and of the Aurora company after the completion of any part of said work herein prescribed and take up and remove the same in case the parties hereto shall in any respect fail to comply with the order and direction of the commission with reference thereto, either as herein prescribed or as prescribed in the future. All ex- pense of so doing to be borne by the party at fault in respect to the matter to be so determined. Seventh All terms, provisions and conditions of this order shall apply to and be binding upon the respective successors, lessees and assigns of all the parties hereto. Eighth The Aurora company shall have the right to erect over the right of way at the respective crossings Nos. 1, 2 and 3, all wires, poles and ap- pliances it may deem necessary for the purpose of conveying electric current to operate its said railroad, but all wires shall be at least seven (7) feet above any wires the respondents may have at said points and shall not be con- structed in any manner so as to interfere with the operation of the cars of the respondents over said crossings. Ninth It is understood that "Exhibit E" attached to said order shows the track of the Terminal and Suburban companies shifted eastwardly from their present location. It is understood and agreed that when the Aurora company lays the crossings and special work called for by "Exhibit E" it shall have the right to cut the track of said Suburban company as now located and the Suburban company shall then shift its track to comply with the location shown by "Exhibit E." Tenth It is further ordered that the petitioner pay forthwith the cost of this proceeding, which said cost shall be paid prior to the said Aurora com- pany entering upon or laying its temporary tracks as herein provided and which said cost shall be such sums as the commission may allow to the parties to this proceeding, and including the cost of the commission itself. Approved: J. S. NEVILLE, Chairman. The Aurora, Elgin & Chicago Ry. Co., by L. J. Wolf, President. Chicago Terminal Transfer R. R. Co.. by Jesse Barton, its General Attorney. The Suburban Railroad Co., by Clarence A. Knight, General Counsel. The Lake Street Elevated R. R. Co..by Clarence A. Knight, President. The Suburban R. R. Co., by L. S. Owsley, President. 28 The Aurora, Elgin & Chicago Railway Company, vs. The Suburban Railroad Company, the Lake Street Elevated R. R. Co., and the Chicago Terminal Transfer R. R. Co. Petition for Grossing. WHEREAS, on the 21st day of February, A. D. 1902, the Board of Railroad and Warehouse Commissioners of the State of Illinois entered an order in the above entitled cause relating, among other matters, to the crossing of the Aurora, Elgin & Chicago Railway company and the Suburban Railway com- pany at the intersection of the Aurora, Elgin & Chicago railway with 52nd avenue in the city of Chicago, Cook county, Illinois, in and by which said order it was provided that the petitioning company should install an inter- locking device at said crossing which should be subject to the approval of the Suburban company and of the consulting engineer of this commission; and in case said parties were unable to agree upon the plan of such inter- locker it was ordered that the chairman of this commission should approve of such interlocker, and WHEREAS, the parties have been unable to agree upon all details of such interlocking device, Now therefore, I, James S. Neville, chairman of the Railroad and Ware- house Commission, upon full investigation of said matter, order and adjudge that the attached blue print and plan of the interlocking device at said point of crossing marked "Exhibit A" and made a part hereof, shall be and the same is hereby approved. It is further ordered, that said interlocking device specified in the attached plan and in this order shall be installed and in operation by Dec. 1, A. D. 1902, provided, however, for cause shown, said time may be extended by this commission. J. S. NEVILLE, Chairman. The Aurora, Elgin & Chicago Railway Company, The Suburban Railroad Co., the Lake Street Elevated Railroad Co. and the Chicago Terminal Transfer R. R. Co. To the Railroad and Warehouse Commission of the State of Illinois: Your petitioner, The Aurora, Elgin & Chicago Railway company, respect- fully represents to your honorable board First That it has heretofore filed before this board its petition asking for certain crossings with the Suburban Railroad company and in which crossings the I ake Street Elevated Railroad company and the Chicago Terminal Trans- fer Railroad company were also interested; that one of said crossings was known in the proceeding heretofore had before this board, as crossing No. 1, and occurred between this company and the Suburban Railroad company, at the point of crossing in Harlem, Cook county, Illinois, near Concordia cemetery; that one of said crossings was known in said proceedings hereto- fore had. as crossing No. 2, and occurred between petitioner's road and the Suburban railroad near Harrison street, and between Euclid avenue and Oak Park avenue, in the town of Cicero, now in the village of Oak Park, Illinois, and that the other crossing involved in said proceedings has been known therein as crossing No. 3, and occurred at the point of crossing between the road of your petitioner and the Suburban railroad on 52nd avenue, between Harrison street and Flournoy street in the city of Chicago, Cook county, Illinois. 29 Second That such proceedings were had in the matter of said petition for crossings, and that on the 21st day of February, A. D. 1902, your honorable board entered an order providing the terms and conditions upon which the crossings aforesaid should be made, which said order remains of record with this commission, is made a part of this petition and to which reference is hereby made for greater certainty. Third That in and by said order it was provided that your petitioner should place at crossing No. 3, aforesaid, a one-half interlocking device, by which the right of way should be given to the cars and trains of the Suburban Railroad company, and might, at its election, in order to avoid waiting for such cars and trains, install a full interlocking device at said crossing, the plans and specifications for which to be subject to the approval of this board. Fourth That your petitioner elected to install a full interlocking plant, at said crossing No. 3, that plans and specifications for such interlocker were submitted and approved by the said Suburban Railroad company and the Metropolitan West Side Elevated railroad, and on to-wit: the 29th day of October, A. D. 1902, were approved by order of this commission, which remains of record with this board and to which reference is hereby made for greater certainty. Fifth Your petitioner further represents that said interlocking plant was placed in operation, as between the lines of your petitioner the Suburban Railroad company and the Metropolitan West Side Elevated railroad, on Thursday, the 6th day of November, A. D. 1902, at 12 : 00 o'clock noon, and ever since said time has been and is now in operation, controlling the movement of trains of said several railways at said point of crossing. Sixth Your petitioner further represents that no agreement exists between said several railway companies, interested in said crossing, to-wit: Your petitioner, the Suburban Railroad company, and the Metropolitan West Side Elevated Railroad, after the division of the cost of operating said interlocking plant and that your petitioner can come to no agreement with said other railway companies, in reference thereto; that your petitioner, in accordance with said order of this board, heretofore entered on the 21st day of February A. D. 1902, has placed said interlocker at said point, and will maintain the same, but that none of said orders, heretofore entered by this commission, fix or determine the amount or proportion which said several railroad com- panies shall pay towards the expenses of operating said plant, and that it is ready and willing to pay its just proportion of said operation. Seventh Your petitioner further represents unto this honorable board that in and by said order of Feb. 21, A. D. 1902, it provided that the Subur- ban Railroad company should change from its present location, at crossing No. 2, to a point further west, on or before Nov. 1, 1902, the particular place of such new location being shown upon Exhibit "Z" attached to said order; that such new location by the Suburban Railroad company would require it to cross Oak Park avenue, in the village of Oak Park, 111., at a point between Harrison (sometimes called Estella street) and Harrison place; that your petitioner cut its rails and placed in position necessary frogs and special work so that said Suburban Railroad company might cross your petitioner's tracks at the new place of crossing on or before Nov. 1, 1902, as required by said order, but that on the 29th day of October, A. D. 1902, the board of trustees of the village of Oak Park, 111., passed a resolution directing the village at- torney to take such legal steps as might be necessary to prevent the Subur- ban Railroad company from making the crossing at Oak Park avenue, on the ground that said Suburban Railroad company had no municipal grant there- for; that said board of trustees thereupon proceeded in a body to said Oak Park avenue crossing and tore up the rails and ties which had been placed therein by said Suburban company, and a part of the special work which had been placed therein by your petitioner for the benefit of said Suburban com- pany: that on the following day, Oct. 30, A. D. 1902, said village of Oak Park filed an intervening petition in the case of the Chicago Title and Trust Company vs. The Suburban Railroad company, pending in the circuit court within and for Cook county, Illinois, in which said last mentioned cause a bill 30 had been filed to foreclose a trust deed, executed by said Suburban Railroad company, securing certain bonds, and in which proceedings a receiver was appointed; that upon presentation of such intervening petition, the said cir- cuit court of Cook county, Illinois, Judge Hanecy presiding, entered an order granting leave to said village to file said intervening petition making said vil- lage a party defendant to the original bill, giving it leave to answer the same, etc., and restraining' the receiver and persons acting under him from pro- ceeding with the construction at the new location across Oak Park avenue; that subsequently said village of Oak Park filed its answer in said original cause, and a cross bill, in which it prays that an injunction may issue per- manently, restraining the said Suburban Railroad company from crossing at Oak Park avenue, alleging that the said Suburban Railroad company is pro- ceeding without any municipal authority whatever, etc.; that all of said proceedings are still pending and undetermined before said circuit court of Cook county, Illinois; that said Suburban Railroad company has not obtained any municipal grant for such crossing, and insists that it is not necessary for it to secure such municipal grant; that the contentions of said several par- ties in said litigation can not, in the ordinary course of events, be deter- mined for some time to come. Eighth Your petitioner further represents that in and by the terms of said order, it was provided that said change of location was to be made by the said |Suburban Railroad company, before your petitioner commenced the construction of its elevation at said point, and that, because of the failure of said Suburban company to make the change in its location, on or before Nov. 1, 1902, as provided in said order, your petitioner has been unable to commence with or proceed with its construction of its elevated structure at said point. Ninth That in and by said order of Feb. 21, A. D., 1902, it was also pro- vided that the work of your petitioner in elevating said tracks should be completed on or before Jan. 1, 1903, unless the chairman of this commission should for good cause, extend the time of completion or there should be de- lay by strike, accidents, or other causes; that owing to the fact that said Suburban company has not yet placed its tracks in such new location, and may not be able to do so for some time to come, it will be wholly impossible for your petitioner to complete the construction of said elevated structure by Jan. 1, 1903. Your petitioner therefore prays that a hearing may be had before this com- mission, upon, the question of the amount and proportion which each of said companies, to-wit: Your petitioner, the Suburban Railroad company, and the Metropolitan West Side Elevated railroad, shall pay towards the opera- tion of said interlocking device, at crossing No. 3 by short day be fixed by this commission, and that upon such hearing this commission shall order and direct the proportions which each company shall bear and pay towards such operation expenses; that such process and notice may issue unto the said several companies as shall bring them before this commission, and that this commission will extend the time within which your petitioner shall complete the elevation at crossing No. 2, to such time as it may deem just and proper and that it will enter such other orders, in the premises, as may seem for the best interests of all parties interested. THE AURORA, ELGIN & CHICAGO R. R. Co. By Fred A. Dolph, its Attorney. Hopkins, Dolph & Scott, Shope, Mathis, Zane & Webber, Attorneys for Petitioner. The Aurora, Elgin & Chicago Railway Company, vs. The Suburban Railroad Co., the Lake Street Elevated Railroad Co. and the Chicago Terminal Transfer R. R. Co. Petition for Crossings. And now, on this 28th day of November, A. D., 1902, said cause coming on again to be heard, and the said petitioner appearing in this cause by Shope, Mathis, Zane and Weber, and Hopkins, Dolph & Scott, its attorneys, the respondent, the Surburban Railroad company and the Lake Street Elevated Railroad Co., by Clarence A. Knight, their attorneey, and L. S. Owsley, receiver of the Suburban Railroad Co., appearing in person and by Clarence A. Knight, his attorney, and the respondent, the Chicago Terminal Transfer Railroad Company by Jesse Barton, its attorney; and it also appearing to this commission that the Metropolitan West Side Elevated Railway Co. has appeared herein and submitted itself to the jurisdiction of this commission for the purpose of having this commission fix upon the portion which it should pay of the operation of the interlocking plant at 52nd avenue between Harrison street and Flooirnoy street, in the city of Chicago, Illinois, being the point of crossing heretofore known in these proceedings as crossing No. 3, which said interlocking plant and plan thereof as has heretofore been ap- proved by this commission; and it further appearing to the commission that by order hereof entered 'on the 21st day of February, A. D., 1902, that the question of the division of the cost of operation of the interlocking plant at said crossing No. 3 was not determined by said order; and it also appearing by said order that the respondent, the Suburban Railroad company, was required to change its tracks and right of way at crossing No. 2 in accord- ance with the general plans shown as "Exhibit Z," and attached to said order and that said work of so changing said tracks should be done prior to the time when the Aurora company was ready to proceed with the work of the overhead structure at said crossing No. 2 required in said order, and it further appearing to the commission that said order provided that the over- head work should be completed by said petitioner the Aurora, Elgin & Chicago Railway company, on or before Jan. 1, 1903, unless the chairman of this commission should have good cause to extend the time of completion or the contractor should be delayed by strikes, accident or other causes inter- fering with the progress of work; and it further appearing to the commission that the work of changing said tracks by said respondent, the Suburban Railroad company, was prevented by action of the village authorities of the village of Oak Park, Cook county, Illinois, and that there is certain litigation pending in the circuit court, Cook county, State of Illinois, relating to the right of said respondent, the Suburban Railroad company, to cross Oak Park avenue at the point designated by the previous order of the commission, and said petitioner having filed herein its petition asking, first, that the propor- tion which each company should pay towards the operation of the interlock- ing plant at crossing No. 3. be fixed and determined by this commission as between the .Suburban Railroad company, the Metropolitan West Side Ele- vated Railway company and the petitioner, the Aurora, Elgin & Chicago Railroad company: and second, that this commission should extend the time within which the petitioner, the Aurora, Elgin & Chicago Railway company should complete the elevation of its tracks at crossing No. 2 in accordance with the order of this commission heretofore entered; Now, therefore, it is ordered and directed, that the Metropolitan West Side Elevated Railway company pay 23-38ths of the cost of the operation of the 32 interlocking plant at crossing No. 3, heretofore approved by this commission; that the respondent, The Surburban Railroad company pay 8-38ths of the cost of such operation of said interlocking plant, and that the petitioner, The Aurora, Elgin & Chicago Railway company pay 7-38ths of the cost of the operation of the said interlocking plant. It is further ordered, that the time within which the petitioner, The Aurora, Elgin & Chicago Railway company shall complete the elevation of its tracks at crossing No. 2, in accordance with terms and conditions of the order heretofore entered herein shall be, and it is hereby, extended for the period of sixty (60) days after the first day of January, 1903. Provided, however, That the chairman of this commission may, on account of weather conditions or other causes rendering it impossible for said peti- tioner to complete said railway within said time still further extend the time for the completion of the said work. JAMES S. NEVILLE, Chairman. A. L. FRENCH. This agreement made and entered into by and between L. S. Owsley, as receiver for the Suburban Railroad company, and the Suburban Railroad company, parties of the first part, said first parties being hereinafter desig- nated as the Suburban company, and the Aurora, Elgin & Chicago Railway company, party of the second part, hereinafter called the Aurora company, witnesseth: Whereas, On the 21st day of February, A. D., 1902, the Railroad and Ware- house Commission of the State of Illinois entered an order upon the petition of the Aurora company in relation to the three crossings of its railway with the lines of railway of the said Suburban company,' in which crossings cer- tain other railroads, viz., the Lake Street Elevated Railroad company and the Chicago Terminal Transfer Railroad company had certain interests, as found and referred to in said order; said crossings being severally designated and described in said order and in said proceedings before said Railroad and Warehouse Commission as crossings number 1, 2 and 3, to which order and proceedings reference is hereby made; and, Whereas, Said order of said Railroad and Warehouse Commission provided for a grade crossing at crossing No. 1 upon certain terms and conditions as said order specified, and provided for a temporary grade crossing at crossing No. 2, under certain terms and conditions in said order specified; and at said crossing No. 2 that said Suburban company should make certain changes in its tracks and said Aurora company should erect an overhead crossing to be completed by said Aurora company on or before Jan. 1, 1903, unless the chairman of said Railroad and Warehouse Commission should, for good cause shown, extend the time for the completion, or the work should be de- layed by strikes, accidents or other causes interfering with the progress of the work; and Whereas, Said order further provided with reference to said crossing No. 3 that the said Aurora company should cross the railroad of said Suburban company at grade, but should install a one-half interlocking device at said point of crossing, upon certain conditions specifically set forth in said order, with the privilege of electing to install a full interlocking device at said crossing, such interlocking device to be subject to the approval of said Rail- road and Warehouse Commission; and, Whereas, On the 29th day of October, A. D., 1902, an order was entered by said Railroad and Warehouse Commission of the State of Illinois, approving a plan of a full interlocking device at said crossing No. 3; and, whereas, said interlocking plant has been installed in accordance with said order approving said plan with the exception of the derail provided for by the said plan to be placed in the tracks of the railway of the said Suburban company, and is now in operation; and, Whereas, On petition of the said Aurora company, an order was entered by said Railroad and Warehouse Commission on the 28th day of November, A. D., 1902, in and by which it was provided that the Metropolitan West Side 33 Elevated Railway company should pay 23-38ths of the cost of the operation of the interlocking plant at crossing No. 3; that the said Suburban company should pay 8-38ths, of the cost of operation of such interlocking plant; and, that the said Aurora company should pay 7-38ths of the cost of the operation of said interlocking plant; said order further providing that the time within which said overhead construction should be completed at crossing No. 2 should be extended for the period of 60 days from the first day of January, 1903, provided that the chairman of said Railroad and Warehouse Commis- sion might on account of weather conditions or other causes rendering it im- possible for the completion of said overhead construction, to further extend the time for the completion of said work; and, Whereas, Certain litigation is now pending in the circuit court of Cook county, State of Illinois, involving the right to make the changes contem- plated in said order of said Railroad and Warehouse Commission, of Febru- ary 21, 1902, instituted by way of intervening petition and cross bill of the village of Oak Park, Cook county, Illinois, filed in the case of the Chicago Title & Trust company vs. The Suburban Railroad company and the various answers and cross petitions and other pleadings of the parties hereto; and, Whereas, in the said case of The Chicago Title & Trust company vs. The Suburban Railroad company, the circuit court of Cook county, Illinois, ap- pointed one L. S. Owsley, as receiver for said Suburban company; Now, therefore, in consideration of the matters and things set forth' in the order of said commission of February 21, 1902, and the order of November 28, 1902, and of the matters and things hereinafter set forth, it is mutually agreed by and between the parties hereto, as follows: First That the said Aurora company shall pay to the receiver of said Suburban company the sum of seven- thousand five hundred (7,500) dollars, when this contract shall have been approved by the Railroad and Warehouse Commission of the State of Illinois and by the village of Oak Park so far as said village is required to approve and of the matters and things herein con- tained, but no part of this contract shall be considered as in force until the payment of said sum of money. Second 'The said Aurora company shall and it does hereby covenant and agree to save and keep harmless the said Suburban company from any cost or expense in relation to the installation, maintenance or operation of the in- terlocking device heretofore approved by the said Railroad and Warehouse Commission at crossing No. 3; the intent and meaning of this agreement being that the said Aurora company shall relieve the said Suburban company of the obligation imposed upon it by said order of the Railroad and Ware- house Commission of the State of Illinois entered on the 28th day of Novem- ber, A. D. 1902, in, and by which order it was provided that said Suburban company should pay eight thirtv-eiehths of the cost of the operation of the said interlocking plant, and said Suburban company is by the approval of this contract bv the Railroad and Warehouse Commission relieved and dis- charged from all cost and expense of all kinds in relation to said crossing No. 3. and interlocker: Provided, said Aurora company shall obtain from the Metropolitan West Side Elevated Railway company a release of any c^aim against said Suburban company for or on account of any matter or tMng connected either with the installation, maintenance or operation of said in- terlocking plant at said crossing No. 3. Third It is further covenanted and agreed that the crossing of the Aurora company over the tracks and right of way of the Suburban company at cross- ing No. 2, shall be and remain at grade at the place of crossing east of the west line of Euclid avenue produced south where now operated and used, un- til the Suburban company shall change said crossing to a place east of the present crossing, which said new crossing is shown upon the blue print at- tached hereto marked "Fxhibit A" and made a part hereof and identified by the words "New Crossing No. 2." Said new crossing No. 2 shall be known as and herein referred to as crossing No. 2, and as a substitute and change of location and right of way from that of old crossing No. 2. The said Au- rora company shall place its track? in the location and upon the tangent -30 34 shown in said blue print marked "Exhibit A," on or before May 25, 1903, and shall install and place in position the frogs, switches and appurtenances, and build said crossing No. 2 for the Suburban company at the said crossing No. 2 without expense or any liability of the Suburban company for said work. Said crossing to be so constructed and in place ready for the Subur- ban company to connect with such special work and crossing on or' before May 25, 1903. The said crossing and right of way as indicated upon said "Exhibit A" to be and remain the property of the Suburban company with like force and effect as though said crossing had not been placed at said point subject to the right of the Aurora company to use said crossing for operating its road thereon, as herein provided, and as provided in the order of Feb. 21, 1902, as herein changed or modified. Fourth It is further covenanted and agreed that said crossing at grade, at said crossing No. 2, shall be and is made upon the further following terms and conditions: (a) The Aurora company shall install and operate on or before June 10, 1903, at its own cost and expense, a hand derailing device at said crossing No. 2, which said device shall be so installed and operated as to constantly leave the tracks of the Aurora company broken, excepting when said device is used to place tracks in position for the crossing by the cars of the Aurora com- pany over the tracks of the Suburban company; the said device shall be so installed and operated that the lever or controlling device of the west bound track or tracks of the Aurora company shall be located west of the tracks of the Suburban company and the lever or controlling device of the east bound track or tracks of the Aurora company shall be located east of the tracks of the Suburban company. (6) The said Aurora company shall furnish, install and maintain the crossing at No. 2, and all crossing frogs, switches and appurtenances neces- sary to make said crossing at grade at crossing No. 2 aforesaid, and said crossing to be the standard double track crossing with open throat for both the Aurora company and the Suburban company, and to be installed under the supervision and direction of the Suburban company. (c) Said Aurora company shall not place or maintain nor operate a live third rail for conducting electricity at the point of crossing for a space of thirty-two feet, being the sixteen feet on each side of the center line of the tracks of the Suburban company. (d) The provisions of the order of February 21, 1902, with reference to the operation of the Aurora company's road by electricity shall be applicable to crossing No. 2 except as herein otherwise provided. (e) The Suburban company shall have the right to attach wires to the poles of the Aurora company at the point of crossing No. 2, but not in any manner to interfere with the operation of the road of the Aurora company. (f) The said Suburban company shall at all times be given the right of way over said crossing No. 2; provided, however, that the said Suburban company shall not stop its carg upon said crossing. Fifth The said Suburban company does hereby waive any and all pro- visions for any overhead crossings at any of the three points of crossing pro- vided for in the said order of the said Railroad and Warehouse Commission of the State of Illinois, provided the Aurora company carries out and fulfills this agreement and the agreement of February 21, 1902, as contained in said order of said commission, except as herein otherwise provided. Sixth The said Suburban company hereby gives and grants to said Aurora company and re-affirms in it, subject to the provisions of the order of Febru- ary 21, 1902, as modified by this agreement, the right to cross at grade the tracks of the said Suburban company with the tracks authorized by its or- dinances at the crossings referred to in said order of said Railroad and Ware- house Commission; the said crossing No. 2, however, shall be made per- manently at the new location herein provided, including the right to install, maintain and operate all wires and electrical conductors, both underneath the tracks and right of way of the Suburban company and overhead which are necessary or which may facilitate the operation of the railroad of the 35 said Aurora company, provided that no such wires or electrical connections shall .interfere with the operation of the railroad of the said Suburban com- pany. Seventh This contract, with all its terms and provisions, shall apply to such additional tracks as either company may hereafter lay at the points of crossing aforesaid. Eighth All terms, conditions and limitations contained in the orders of the Railroad and Warehouse Commission of the State of Illinois regarding said crossing, in relation to the installation, operation and maintenance thereof, shall remain in full force and effect, except as herein otherwise pro- vided, and especially the provisions contained in said order with reference to the right of the Suburban company to take up and remove the tracks and appurtenances of the Aurora company in case it shall fail to comply with the terms, provisions, conditions and limitations contained in this agreement and in the order of Feb. 21, 1902, as herein modified, shall continue and remain in force the same as though embodied herein. Ninth This contract shall extend to the successors, lessees and assigns of the parties hereto, and all persons or corporations claiming through or under them, or either of them, and shall be. a contract, the provisions of which shall extend to and inure to the benefit of the properties affected hereby and shall run with such properties. In witness whereof, this agreement has been executed on behalf of the Suburban Railroad company by L. S. Owsley, its receiver, pursuant to order and direction of the circuit court of Cook county, Illinois, and these presents have beeen executed by the Aurora, Elgin & Chicago Railway company by L. J. Wolf, its president, and attested by Warren Bicknell, its secretary, this 24th day of December, A. D. 1902. L. S. OWSLEY. As Receiver of the Suburban Railroad, Company. THE SUBURBAN RAILWAY Co., By P. H. Roeschlaub, President. E. C. Veasey, Secretary. THE AURORA, ELGIN AND CHICAGO RAILWAY COMPANY, Attest: By L. J. Wolf. Warren Bicknell, Secretary. Approved : THE CHICAGO' TERMINAL TRANSFER RAILROAD Co., Attest: By J. N. Paithorn, President. H. H. Hall, Asst. Secretary. O. K.: F. E. Paradis. O. K.: THE LAKE STREET ELEVATED R. R. Co. By Clarence A. Knight, President. Approved: RAILROAD AND WAREHOUSE COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS.. By James S. Neville, Chairman. The Chicago Terminal Transfer Railroad company hereby approves the foregoing contract, so far as the same relates to the crossing with the tracks of the Suburban company over the tracks and right of way of the Chicago Terminal Transfer Railroad company, and consents that the Suburban com- pany shall have the right of way and crossing in lieu of and place of the former crossing of the Suburban company over the tracks and right of way of the Terminal company, subject to the same terms and covenants. CHICAGO TERMINAL TRANSFER RAILROAD COMPANY, Attest: By J. N. Paithorn, President, H. H. Hall, Asst. Secretary. 36 BEFORE THE HONORABLE, THE BOARD OF RAILROAD AND WAREHOUSE COMMIS- SIONERS OF THE STATE or ILLINOIS. In the matter of the objections of the St. Louis Traffic Bureau and other shippers doing business in East St. Louis, to the enforcement of the so-called reconsignment order put in force Nov. 1, 1902, by the Local Freight Agents Association (composed of agents of the several railroads running into East St. Louis) which abrogates rules in force by consent of all parties interested for more than seven years. OPINION BY NEVILLE, CHAIRMAN. For seven years prior to the first of November, 1902, the railroad com- panies doing business in East St. Louis and within the switching limits thereof, had the following rules: "1. All cars of oats, corn, wheat and rye received, not consigned to ele- vators or specific track delivery, or so ordered before arrival, will be held on tracks for inspection and sale, until 5:00 p. m. of the day following delivery of notice of arrival. If by that time, cars are ordered to some destination within the yard limits of the company they will be sent to such point with- out extra charge. If ordered after 5:00 p. m. of the day following notice of arrival, usual switching charges will be collected. "2. If disposition is not furnished for cars by 5:00 p. m. of the day after delivery of notice of arrival, grain will be stored in public elevator, the usual switching charge being made for handling to elevators. "3. All cars arriving consigned to some specific point of delivery, or ordered before arrival, will be delivered at point designated on arrival. If ordred from said point after being properly placed, usual switching charges will be made. "4. Sundays and legal holidays are not to be counted in allowances of free time for reconsignment." Shortly before November 1, 1902, the several railroad companies gave notice to the shippers and receivers of grain within the switching limits of East St. Louis, that on and after November 1, the following order or rule would be in force: "Effective November 1, 1902, a regular switching and reconsignment charge, minimum $2 per car, will be made on all commodities reconsigned within the switching limits of St. Louis and East St. Louis." About that time the shippers and receivers of grain, of East St. Louis, filed with the Railroad and Warehouse Commission' a petition protesting against the change in rules, and the adoption of the rule making a charge of $2 on all cars of grain reconsigned within the switching limits of East St. Louis. The case was set for hearing before this board and on the 19th Hum in excess of $4.00 per car, was guilty of a violation of :-mrh nil':. We have carefully reconsidered the grounds for that decision and have arrived at the conclusion that the decision, on the facts presented, was right. It is unnecessary to again repeat the reasons which influ^nrcd us in arriv- ing at the conclusion there announced, and as, the fact.* in mil case bring it squarely within the Weber case, we are of op charging more than $4.oo per car for the service performed, as set forth in the petition, was and is guilty of extortion. (Signer!) W. H. BOVM, Chairman. B. A, ECKHAKT, Cr/mmititioner, .]. A. Wn.r.ot OHBV, Committioner. this 6th day of August, 1&07. of Oregon, III., v$. Chicago ft Northwestern Ry. Co. and Chicago, Burlington it Quincy Ry. Co. Petition for "Y" Conner.tir/n at Kochelle, III. Petition filed May 20, I!W. August 6, 1&07, matter settled by agreement, respondent companies agreeing to make the connection and case Frank M. Annls, Aurora, 111. tut Illinois, Iowa it Minnesota Ry. Ot (JompUtint of In*ufflf;i(-.nt Pa**enger Hervice, Petition filed June 24, 1907. December 5, 1*07, case heard by the comraimiion and taken under advise- ment. Peoria, Lincoln it Springfield Traction Co., ML Chicago ft Alton Ry. Co. Petitifm to fix Plat:e and Manner of Crowing Near Minier, III. Petition filed June 28, 1&07. July 10, K07, pla^;e of proposed crossing viewed by commission. August 6, Id07, rase heard by the commission. August 8, 1*07, order of the commission entered of record as follows: nit. RAII,K/>AJ> A*J> WAKCHOCMK COMMMKIO* or Tier STATE OK II.MNOI.S. i Peoria, Lincoln ft Springfield Traction Co., ML Chicago ft Alton Railroad Co. '/n to cronn the track* of the Chicago >'- /,<,'/ower on the commission to fix maxi- mum rates for the transportation of cars, and the transportation of cars means any movement of cars from one noint to another; whether it is one hundred miles, or whether it is one hundred feet, it is a movement just the same; and consequently if our interpretation is correct that gives us complete power to fix maximum charges in all movements of oars. That would include what we generally understand to be switching cars from one point to another within switching limits, or within a town, or short distances; and if we are correct in that conclusion, then necessarily we have a right to define the particular service that we are fixing a maximum charge for. It seems to us to be immaterial what we call it. If we define a particular service and say the maximum charge for that service shall be so nuich; another service, we define it, give it a name, and the name is not material, and say the maximum charge for that service shall be so much. Now, if we are correct in that, we dispose of the two first questions sub- mitted. The first one is as to the power of the Railroad and Warehouse Commission to define what constitutes switching, and second the power of the Railroad and Warehouse Commission to fix and define the switching limits. I f we have the power to fix the maximum charge for switching, as we under- stand the term generally, we undoubtedly have the power to say that for a switch of three miles the maximum charge shall be so and so and for five miles it may be a greater amount. 159 The third question submitted is as to the power of the Railroad and Ware- house Commission to establish joint rates for switching. It is claimed by Mr. Mayer in his brief that we have the power to establish joint rates; that is denied by the representatives of the railroad companies. No authorities have been cited on either side and we have not had time to make the investiga- tion on that point that we desire to make, and do not not care at this time to express any opinion. In the reply brief filed by Mr. Mayer he takes the posi- tion, as we understand him, that the commission has the right to compel a railroad company to absorb switching charges, that is to say, that freight may be delivered to one railroad in Chicago to be delivered to another and be transported by the latter road, and that we have a right to say that the first road must either look to the road making the haul for its compensation, or do the work without compensation. We do not think that is right. We do not think we have that power. A drayman, under the decisions, is a common carrier as well as a railroad. One might as well call a drayman to his store to get a box and take it to the C., B. & Q. Ry. and collect the charges from the C., B. & Q. Ry. It seems to us that is so, but on the' general question sub- mitted as to the right to fix the maximum switching charges, which is not disputed, the right to define the service which we intend to cover by that, we think we have that power, and that being true I presume it will be nec- essary to fix a time to hear evidence as to what the rule shall be and the rates to be fixed. Chicago, Wilmington and Vermilion Coal Co. vs. St. Louis and Springfield Ry. Co. Petition to Cross at Grade near the County Line of Sangamon and Macoupin Counties. Petition filed August 9, 1907. Sept. 3, 1907, place of proposed crossing viewed by the commission. Oct. 22, 1907, the order of the commission in this case was filed of record as follows: BEFORE THE RAILROAD AND WAREHOUSE COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS. Chicago, Wilmington and Vermilion Coal Company. vs. St. Louis & Springfield Railway Company. It appears from the petition filed in this case that the petitioner is about to construct a switch track from its coal mine, located in or near the village of Thayer, to a point of connection with the Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Company, some two or three miles distant, and in so doing it will be necessary to cross the main line of respondent's road. It further appears that petitioner's switch track is to be used only for the purpose of switching coal from petitioner's mine to the C., B. & Q. R. R., and that so far as it is concerned, the movements over the proposed crossing will probably not exceed an average of four per day. It further appears that on the 12th day of September, A. D. 1907, petitioner and respondent entered into a certain contract relative to the proposed cross- ing, wherein it is agreed among other things, that the petitioner may cross with its proposed switch track, the main track of respondent, at grade, at a point particularly described therein, and that petitioner shall install and maintain at said crossing a certain interlocking device therein described. And it appearing to the commission that a grade crossing at the point mentioned, if properly interlocked, as provided in said contract, will provide adequate protection to life and property. It is therefore ordered and decided that petitioner be and it is hereby granted the right to cross with its proposed switch track the main track of the i6o respondent at grade, at the point particularly described in the contract above referred to, a copy of which is hereto attached and made a part of this order. It is further ordered and decided that petitioner shall at its own expense install and maintain at said crossing an interlocking device, substantially as is provided for in said contract, and it is further ordered and decided that the said contract hereinbefore referred to be and the same is hereby approved. Dated this 22nd day of October, A. D. 1907. W. H. BOYS, Chairman. B. A. ECKHART, Commissioner. J. A. WILLOUGHBY, Commissioner. Joliet and Southern Traction Company vs. Chicago and Alton R. R. Co. Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Ry. Co. Chicago, Lake Shore and Eastern Ry. Co. and Elgin, Joliet and Eastern Ry. Co. Petition for a Crossing at Grade in Jackson Street in the City of Joliet, III. Petition filed August 21, 1907. August 27, 1907, place of proposed crossing viewed by commission. September 5, 1907, commission granted permission to all parties to file briefs. December 4, 1907, order of the commission filed of record as follows: BEFOBE THE RAILROAD AND WAREHOUSE COMMISSION or THE STATE OF ILLINOIS. Joliet and Southern Traction Company, vs. The Chicago and Alton Railroad Company, Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway Company, The Chicago, Lake Shore and Eastern Railway Company, and the Elgin, Joliet and Eastern Railway Company. Petition for a Grade Crossing. APPEARANCES : For Petitioner, J. K. NEWHALL, JOHN M. RAYMOND. For Chicago & Alton Railroad Company, JAMES MILES. For Chicago, Lake Shore and Eastern R. R. Co., and Elgin, Joliet and Eastern Ry. Co., R. W. CAMPBELL. The petitioner in this case is a railroad corporation organized under the laws of the State of Illinois relating to the incorporation of railroad com- panies, and is authorized by its charter to construct and operate a railroad from the city of Joliet, in Will county, in a southwesterly direction through the counties of Grundy, Will and Livingston to the city of Dwight, in Livingston county. The road is to be operated by electricity. On the 23rd day of April, A. D. 1906, the city council of the city of Joliet duly passed its ordinance number 2233 authorizing the petitioner to construct, maintain and operate its railroad on and over certain streets in the city of Joliet and particularly on and over Jackson street, in said city, from the intersection of such street with Chicago street, easterly to the eastern cor- porate limits of the city. In constructing its line on Jackson street it will be necessary for the petitioner to cross the tracks of all of the respondents. The Chicago and Alton Railroad Company's tracks enter the city of Joliet at a point on the southern city limits, and run thence directly north through the city. The tracks of the" Atchison, Topeka and Santa F6 Railway Company are adjacent to and parallel with the tracks of the Chicago and Alton Rail- road Company. North of Jefferson street the tracks of the Chicago, Lake Shore and Eastern Railway Company and the Elgin, Joliet and Eastern Railway Company run north parallel with the tracks of the Chicago and Alton Railroad Company and the Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway Company, to a point north of Jackson street. On the 23rd day of January, A. D. 1906, the city council of the city of Joliet passed an ordinance requiring all of the respondents to elevate their tracks through certain portions of the city, and this ordinance and the pro- visions thereof, were duly accepted by the respondents. By the provisions of this ordinance the track elevation commences on the south line of Ohio street and with a gradually ascending grade of five-tenths of one per cent crosses Jackson, Benton, Webster, Cass, Clinton, Van Buren and Jefferson streets. At Jackson street the elevation will be about four feet above the present grade of the street. Benton and Webster streets are, by the pro- visions of the ordinance, vacated at the point where they are crossed by the track elevation. A subway is provided for at Cass and at Clinton streets. Van Buren street is vacated and a subway is provided for at Jefferson street. South of Jefferson street three subways are provided for. The railroad tracks of respondents are laid through the center of the city, that is to say, the population east of the tracks is about equal to that west of the tracks. Aside from these six subways so provided for by the ordinance, all other intervening streets, or the portion thereof which will be occupied by the enbankments, are vacated. Street railway tracks are now laid and being used on all of the streets where subways are provided, except on Clinton street, and this street is used very extensively by wagons and other vehicles, and because of the fact that this is the only street where a subway is provided which is not occupied by street railway tracks, the officials of the city of Joliet and the people owning frontage on the street, decline to give their consent to petitioner to construct and operate its line on this street. The petitioner's line enters the city of Joliet from the northwest and runs thence in a southerly direction to Jackson street, and thence east on Jack- son street to the city limits and to require it to cross the tracks of the respondents at any point south of Jackson street would have the effect of lengthening its line, which it desires, of course, to avoid. The Atchison, Topeka and Santa F6 Railway Company has at the present time four tracks crossing Jackson street. Immediately east of these tracks the Chicago and Alton Railroad Company have six tracks crossing Jackson street. Immediately east of and adjoining the tracks of the Chicago and Alton Railroad Company, are two tracks owned by the Chicago, Lake Shore and Eastern Railroad Company and one track owned by the Elgin, Joliet and Eastern Railway Company, making a total of thirteen tracks. After the passage of the track elevation ordinance referred to, the city council of the city of Joliet passed another ordinance authorizing the Atchi- son, Topeka and Santa F6 Railway Company to elevate its two main tracks over Jackson street and required it to construct a subway under such tracks. The elevation of these tracks has been completed and a subway constructed, the entrance to said subway from the east on Jackson street being about seventy feet west of the west track owned by said company, and which is at grade. Under these conditions it is the contention of the petitioner that it is impossible for it to construct an overhead crossing because the two tracks which have been elevated by the Atchison, Topeka and Santa F6 Railway Company would interfere with such a plan. The evidence in the case shows that if the petitioner is required to construct a subway at this point that such subway can not be naturally drained because the bottom of the same would II O 1 62 be below any and all of the sewers which have been constructed in that part of the city, and that therefore such subway would have to be drained by artificial means, which is not only quite expensive, but is very unsatisfactory. We are thoroughly satisfied that the petitioner has been very diligent in attempting to avoid a grade crossing at the point mentioned, and perhaps because of this fact the city council of the city of Joliet, on August 26, 1907, duly passed a resolution, which is as follows: "Be it resolved by the city council of Joliet, Illinois. That the plans for the crossing of the railroad tracks on the Chicago and Alton Railroad, the Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railroad, the Chicago, Lake Shore and Eastern Railway and the Elgin, Joliet and Eastern Railway on Jackson street, near Michigan street, as submitted by the Joliet and Southern Trac- tion Company, be and the same are hereby authorized to cross at grade the present surface tracks of said railroads, and that said work shall be done subject to the approval of the committee on streets and alleys and the city engineer." In view of the difficulties in the way of the petitioner crossing the tracks of the respondents, its evident good faith in the matter, and the attitude of the officials of the city of Joliet, we would be very loath to refuse a grade cross- ing to the petitioner, unless to grant such permission could be construed as an act of gross, if not criminal negligence on the part of the commission. The evidence in this case shows that the Chicago and Alton Railroad Com- pany have about eighty-two (82) train movements per day across Jackson street; that the Chicago, Lake Shore and Eastern Railway Company have about ten (10) movements per day and the Elgin, Joliet and Eastern Railway Company the same number. The Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway Company was not represented at the hearing and no evidence was introduced showing the number of trains operated by it, but inasmuch as this is its main line on which it operates practically as many trains as the Chicago and Alton Railroad Company, we are perhaps safe in saying that it has at least fifty (50) train movements over this crossing per day. The evidence also shows that the petitioner will operate a car over this crossing every ten minutes, and if cars are operated from 6:00 a. m. until 10:00 p. m. there would be approximately ninety (90) cars run over the crossing during each day, making the total number of movements approximately two hundred and fifty (250) per day. As we view it these facts alone furnish a sufficient reason for refusing permission to construct a grade crossing at this point, but there are other difficulties in the way. If a grade crossing was permitted cars approaching from the west would be entirely cut off from any view of trains on the respondents' lines by the elevated tracks of the Atchison, Topeka and Sant F6 Railway Company until they were within a very few feet of the crossing. The tracks of the respondents across this street when the track elevation is completed, will be laid upon a grade of five-tenths of one per cent and trains approching the crossing from the north will prob- ably be operated at a higher rate of speed, because of this grade, than would otherwise be necessary, while trains approaching the crossing from the south would be on a descending grade and consequently not under as perfect control as if the tracks were level. The evidence also shows that the Chicago and Alton Railroad Company and the Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Rail- way Company operate a large number of through passenger trains and that such trains are operated over this crossing at an average rate of speed of thirty miles per hour. All of these things combine to make the crossing a very dangerous one. We do not think counsel for the respondents exaggerate in the least when they say in their brief, "if a death trap were deliberately planned, human ingenuity would have trouble in contriving a worse one." We are not unmindful of the fact that to permit petitioner to cross these tracks at Jefferson street would better serve the convenience of that portion of the citizens of Joliet who will patronize the line, nor of the fact that to require the petitioner to construct a subway at this point will mean the ex- penditure of a considerable sum of money, but we are not willing to balance that expenditure against loss of life or limb. In the evidence presented at the hearing we are unable to find a single fact that would justify us in entering an order in this case permitting the petitioner to cross at grade. 163 When a question of this character is presented to the commission its first and most important duty is to see to it that the lives of the traveling public and of the employes of the parties interested are properly protected. In a case recently decided by the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania (Penn- sylvania Railroad Company vs. Waterloo Street Railway Company, 188 Pa. St., 79) the Court said: "What a century ago were deemed unsurmountable obstacles to an under or over crossing are now treated as only engineering difficulties, which skill and capital can generally overcome. * * * It is not as if the result of a collision were the injury to, or even the destruction of property, which com- pared with rapid and cheap travel and transit might perhaps be trivial but it is the dangers to the persons of the public which is to be avoided. Safety is the object in view, and therefore on determining what is reasonable we must not balance expense and difficulty against loss of life or limb." In another case (Chester Traction Company vs. Railroad Company, 188 Pa. St., 105) the Court said: "But one conclusion can reasonably be formed from these undisputed facts; a grade crossing is highly dangerous to the traveling public on both roads. All precautions taken to avoid danger serve only to lessen it. The millions of passengers on the two roads are at the risk of the few railroad servants who have charge of them; recklessness, negligence, inattention or dullness on the part of the servants will still endanger life and limb of the passen- gers. "While we are writing this opinion the news of the Cohoes accident where the steam road was crossed at grade by the electric, has come to us. Every passenger in the electric qar goes into one or the other of the two classes of sixteen killed and seventeen injured. The servants of each system attribute the accident to the negligence of those of the other. "Increasing the number of crossings only increases the danger by increas- ing the chances for collisions." On the question of the expense in separating grades the Court in this same case said: "But the financial inability of the company is not a test to determine whether an improvement to carry safely three millions of passengers is rea- sonable and practicable; otherwise the poorer the company the more un- limited its right to interfere with the exercise by the older company of its franchises and the more freely can it discharge the safety of the traveling public. * * * Grade crossings are not to be established to promote the mere convenience of the railroad seeking to cross. * * * Admit that a collision would cost one or the other of the companies, or both, a heavy sum. That would mean a loss of dividends to the company and a loss of life or limb to the traveling public; the risks are not equal and humanity shrinks from off-setting the one against the other." Our views are in harmony with the views expressed by the Court in these opinions. It is therefore ordered that the petitioner, the Joliet and Southern Traction Company, be and it is hereby authorized to cross the tracks of the Chicago and Alton Railroad Company, the Atchison, Topeka and Santa F6 Railway Company, the Chicago, Lake Shore and Eastern Railway Company and the Elgin, Joliet and Eastern Railway Company on Jackson street, in the city of Joliet, Will county, Illinois, by means of a subway, to be constructed by the petitioner under the several tracks of the railroad companies named. It is further ordered and decided that the Chicago and Alton Railroad Company, the Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway Company, the Chicago, Lake Shore and Eastern Railway Company and the Elgin, Joliet and Eastern Railway Company shall, if practicable, at the same time such subway is con- structed by the petitioner, elevate their several tracks across Jackson street so as to conform to the grade provided for in the ordinance of the city of Joliet requiring the elevation of such tracks. It is further ordered and decided that the cost of separating the grades at the point named shall be borne and paid by the railroad companies in- terested, in the following proportion, to-wit: Two-thirds of the expense of separating such grades shall be paid by the petitioner and one-third of the expense of separating such grades shall be paid by the respondents. 164 It is further ordered and decided that should the petitioner at any time before the construction of said subway find a more feasible and practicable place to effect such crossing, that then and in such case the same may be presented to this commission for its consideration by means of a supplemental petition. Dated this 4th day of December, A. D. 1907. (Signed) W. H. BOYS, Chairman. B. A. ECKHART, Commissioner. J. A. WIIXOUGHBY, Commissioner. Mississippi Valley Electric Ry. Co. vs. The Wabash R. R. Co. and the The Toledo, Peoria and Western Ry. Co. Petition for Grade Crossings near Carthage, III., and Elvaston, III. Petition filed September 20, 1907. September 25, 1907, place of proposed crossings viewed by commission. October 17, 1907, petitioner granted leave to file amended petition. October 23, 1907, amended petition filed making the Chicago, Burlington and Quincy R. R. Co. an additional party respondent. November 5, 1907, case continued without date at the request of the petitioner. Case still pending. F. H. Robertson, Essex, 111., vs. Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago and St. Louis Ry. Co. Complaint of Insufficient Passenger Service on the Kankakee and Seneca Division of the C., C., C. & St. L. Ry. Co. Petition filed October 22, 1907. December 5, 1907, case heard before the commission. January 25, 1908, order of the commission filed of record as follows: BEFORE THE RAILROAD AND WAREHOUSE COMMISSION OF ILLINOIS. F. H. Robertson, vs. Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago and St. Louis Railway Co. Inadequate Passenger Service. APPEARANCES : For Petitioner, MR. J. W. RAUSCH. For Respondent, MR. GEORGE B. GILLESPIE. The complaint in this case, which is accompanied by a petition signed by more than three hundred residents of the villages along the line of the road, is based upon the fact that the respondent does not operate any passen- ger trains upon the so-called Kankakee and Seneca branch of its road. The facts appear to be as follows: The Kankakee and Seneca Railway Com- pany is a corporation duly organized under the general laws of this State and owns a line of railroad 42.5 miles in length, extending from Kankakee, 165 Illinois, to Seneca, Illinois. The capital stock of this company is $10,000.00, one-half of which is owned by the respondent and the other half is owned by the Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific Railroad Company. By an arrange- ment between the Rock Island Company and the respondent, the exact terms of which do not appear from the evidence, the respondent is now, and for a number of years last past has been, operating the road. A passenger train was operated over the line for a time, but was discontinued some ten or twelve years ago, since which time only freight or mixed trains have been operated. Of the cities and villages through which the road runs, Kankakee has a population of 20,000 or more; Bonfield, 250; Essex, 500; South Willmington, 4,000; Gardner, 1,500; Mazon, 800; Wauponsee, 150; Lanham, 50; Seneca, 1,350, and the country through which it passes is a well settled farming country. The time-card offered in evidence shows that four third-class trains are at the present time run over the road daily, Sundays excepted. Train No. 237 is scheduled to leave Kankakee at 6:45 a. m. and is due at Seneca at 10:45 a. m., the scheduled rate of speed being about ten and one-half miles per hour. Returning this train leaves Seneca as No. 234, at 12:01 p. m. and is due to arrive at Kankakee at 3:50 p. m., the scheduled rate of speed being about eleven miles per hour. Train No. 216 leaves Seneca at 7:15 a. m. and is due to arrive at Kankakee at 10:00 a. m. Returning this train leaves Kankakee as No. 215 at 4:05 p. m. and is due to arrive at Seneca at 6:45 p. m., the scheduled running time of the last two trains being about sixteen miles per hour. Each of these trains carry freight, express, baggage, mail and passengers, and for the accommodation of passengers a combination car and passenger coach are attached to each train. The Kankakee and Seneca Railway con- nects with the Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific Railway Company at Seneca; crosses the main line of the Atchison, Topeka and Santa F Railroad Com- pany at Mazon; the main line of the Chicago and Alton Railroad Company at Gardner; the Elgin, Joliet and Eastern Railroad Company at Coster; the main line of the Wabash Railroad Company at Essex, and connects with the main line of the respondents' road, the Chicago, Indiana and Southern Rail- road Company, and the Illinois Central Railroad Company at Kankakee. At each of these points there is an interchange of business with connecting lines, and as the switching at all intermediate points is performed by the regular train crews, the result is that these trains are very frequently behind time, and the service, so far as passengers are concerned, is very unsatis- factory. The evidence on the part of the petitioner tends to show that the passenger coaches used on these trains are old and dirty, and neither comfortably heated nor adequately lighted; that the trains are frequently late, thus causing passengers to miss connections at connecting points, and because of this fact ninety-five per cent of the passengers from South Willmington and Gardner and that immediate vicinity going to Morris, the county seat of Grundy county, take the Alton road to Joliet and the Rock Island road from that point to Morris, traveling a distance of fifty miles rather than take the chances of missing the Rock Island connection at Seneca, although the distance is only about twenty-eight mtiles. The clerk of the Grundy county circuit court testified that it was the uniform practice to allow jurors and witnesses 100 miles mileage via Joliet, notwithstanding the fact that it was only a little more than half that distance via Seneca, and this, because of the uncertainty of the trains on the respondent's road. Passengers from these points to Morris would naturally take respondent's train No. 237, which is due to arrive at Seneca at 10:45 a. m. A northbound train on the Rock Island is due at Seneca at 10:48 a. m., and should this connection be missed the next train on which passengers for Morris could take passage is due at Seneca at 4:54 p. m. Respondent offered in evidence copies of the train sheets showing the time of arrival of the several trains operated on this branch covering a period of about 21 months. These train sheets show the following facts: Out of a total of 559 days train No. 216 arrived at Kankakee on time 455 times and i66 was from 10 minutes to two hours and thirty minutes late 104 times; No. 234 arrived at Kankakee on time 496 times and was from 10 minutes to four hours late sixty -three times; No. 215 arrived at Serieca on time 486 times and was from ten minutes to three hours late seventy-three times; No. 237 arrived at Seneca on time 492 times and was from ten minutes to three hours and thirty minutes late sixty-seven times. The evidence on the part of the petitioner tended to show that at intermediate stations these trains were almost invariably late. This evidence is, however, not incon- sistent with the train sheet records, because of the fact that the scheduled rate of speed is so slow that a train might be an hour late at Gardner and still arrive at the terminus on time.' But independently of the evidence on this point, it seems to us that the facilities furnished by the respondent are wholly inadequate to the needs of the communities through which this road runs, and this being so, is it not the legal duty of the respondent to operate a separate passenger train over this branch line? We think the Supreme Court in the case of The People ex rel. vs. St. Louis, Alton and Terre Haute Railroad Company, 176 111., 512, has answered this question in the affirmative. That was a petition for a writ of mandamus to compel the respondent to furnish, place, run and operate "on said railroad extending from Eldorado to DuQuoin a daily (Sundays excepted) passenger train, each way, suitable and sufficient to carry all passengers, with their necessary baggage, in comfortable and reasonable security, and at a reason- able speed, and to operate said line of railroad from East St. Louis to El- dorado as a continuous line. * * *" The evidence in the case showed that the only train operated over the whole length of the branch was a mixed train consisting of coal, stock and freight cars, to which was attached a combination car and passenger coach; that it was a slow train, often being behind its schedule time from twenty minutes to three hours, and certain other facts not necessary to here state. It was claimed in behalf of respondent that while it was obliged to furnish cars for the carriage of passengers, yet it was not necessarily obliged to carry passengers upon a separate passenger train, and that it had the right to ex- ercise its own discretion as to the manner of their transportation. The Court said (p. 519) : "The question is not whether appellee should run more than one train, but the question, is, whether is does all that it is required to do when it runs a passenger coach attached to a. freight train; or whether it is its duty to run one or more passenger coaches, separate and disconnected from freight cars, for the accommodation of ' passengers only and not of passengers in connection with shippers." 'After discussing certain questions in the case, the Court said (p. 524) : '"* * * the right of the people to insist upon the running of a separate passenger train is implied from the charter obligations to equip and operate the road. Inasmuch as a railroad company is bound to carry both passen- gers and freight the obligation of the appellee required it to furnish all necessary rolling stock and equipment for the suitable and proper operation of the railroad as a carrier of passengers, no less than as a carrier of freight. It can not be said that the carriage of passengers in a car attached to a freight train is a suitable and proper operation of a railroad, so far as the carriage of passengers is concerned. The transportation of passengers on a freight train, or on a mixed train, is subordinate to the transportation of freight, a mere incident to the business of carrying freight. To furnish such cars as are necessary for the suitable and proper carriage of passengers involves the necessity of adopting that mode of carrying passengers which is best adapted to secure fcheir safety and convenience. This can be accom- plished better by operating a separate passenger train than by operating a mixed train. That is to say, the duty of furnishing all necessary rolling stock and equipment for the suitable and proper operation of a railroad carry- ing passengers involves and implies the duty of furnishing a train which shall be run for the purpo*se of transporting passengers only, and not freight and passengers together." i6 7 Again the Court said (p. 526) : "It follows, that when the only train operated by a railroad company is a mixed train, passengers being unable to ride upon any other kind of train, are forced to incur risks and submit to inconveniences, which do not exist on a separate passenger train. Hence, the operation of a railroad with a mixed train only is inconsistent with the duty of furnishing such cars and locomotives as are necessary to the suitable and proper operation of the railroad when engaged in the passenger traffic. We are not unmindful of the fact that, within certain limits, a discretion may be exercised as to what rolling stock and equipment are necessary for the suitable and proper opera- tion of a railroad carrying passengers. When the mode of carrying passen- gers is separate from the mode of carrying freight the legitimate exercise of discretion may begin. What we hold is, that there can not be suitable and proper operation of the railroad as a carrier of passengers, when the car in which it carries its passengers, is part of a freight train, because freight trains are inferior to passenger trains, and travel in them is attended with less comfort, convenience and safety than travel in passenger trains. The inferiority of a freight train to a passenger train as a mode of carrying passengers is so obvious that no man of ordinary understanding would regard the use of a freight train for the purpose of hauling a passenger car, as a suitable and proper operation of a railroad in the matter of transporting passengers." If we correctly understand the holding of the court in this case it is then the legal duty of the respondent, under the circumstances disclosed by the evidence in the case under consideration, to operate at least one separate passenger train in each direction over its line daily, unless it is to be ex- cused from this duty by certain facts which we will now consider. It is contended by the respondent: (1) That the Kankakee and Seneca Railway is operated by it, not in connection with its other lines, but as a separate and independent enterprise. (2) That the revenue derived from the operation of this branch is not sufficient to pay the operating expenses of the road and its fixed charges, and (3) That this commission has no power or jurisdiction to enter an order which will be binding upon the respondent. It is perhaps true, as claimed, that a separate account is kept by the re- spondent showing the income and operating expenses of the Kankakee and Seneca branch, but the fact is also shown that the respondent owns one-half of the capital stock of the Kankakee and Seneca Railway, and by an arrange- ment with the owner of the other half of the stock, is now, and for many years past has been, operating the road. It connects with its main line at Kankakee, and we think we are justified by the evidence in holding that it is operated in connection with the main line and other branches of the respondent's railroad as one system. Respondent offered in evidence a summary of its accounts for the year ending December- 31, 1906. From this it appears that the income of the road was sufficient to pay its operating expenses and leave net earnings amounting to $1,622.55. Its fixed charges and taxes amounted to $6,750.61, leaving a deficit after paying operating expenses, fixed charges and taxes of $5,128.06. The summary of operations for the first nine months of the year 1907 is in substantial accord with the showing for the year 1906. If the Kankakee and Seneca branch is to be considered separate and apart from the other lines operated by the respondent in the State of Illinois, we should hesitate to recommend to the respondent that it put on and operate passenger trains on this branch, but we see no reason why this branch should be considered separately and by itself. The respondent operates its main road and branches, and the Kankakee and Seneca Railway as one system, and it appears from its report, which it is required to file with the Railroad and Warehouse Commission, that its gross earnings in the State of Illinois for the year ending June 30, 1907, exclusive of the Kankakee and Seneca Railway, were $6,291,219.49, and that its net income from the operation per mile of road in the State of Illinois, after deducting the expenses of opera- tion, was $2,943.58. i68 The question here raised by the respondent was considered by the court in the case above cited, and it was said (p. 530) : "If it be admitted that a railroad company is not bound to run a separate passenger train when its business is not sufficient to warrant it in doing so, we are confronted at this point with the question, whether this doctrine refers to the business done by the main road and other roads leased by it and connected with it, all of which are operated * * * as one line, or whether it can be made to refer to a small part of the continuous line or system which happens to run through a section of country, where the freight is not so much and the passengers are not so many as is the case on some other part of the line. We are of opinion that the whole business of the various parts operated as one line should be taken into consideration where the circumstances are such as are revealed by this record. The duty required of a railroad company in the matter of transporting passengers is the duty to meet and supply the public wants. These wants are measured by the business actually done, or what it could be clearly shown could be done if increased facilities were granted. That there is here a public de- mand for passenger service is shown by the fact that a passenger car is attached to a freight train, and that passengers are invited to ride and do ride upon this mixed train. It is not contended that appellee is not abund- antly able out of the earnings realized by it, from the system controlled by it, to pay the expense of running a passenger car separately from freight cars over the Belleville and Eldorado Railroad and thereby save the traveling public from the increased danger and inconvenience of taking passage on a freight train." Inasmuch as the Kankakee and Seneca line is operated by the respondent as a part of its system and its income from the system operated in this State is more than sufficient to enable it to pay the expense of operating a passen- ger train on this branch, without any appreciable effect upon the earnings of the whole line in the State considered as one system, the first and second contentions of respondent must be denied. We quite agree with counsel for the respondent that this commission has no power to enter an order in this case and to enforce the same without the aid of the courts. The statute, however, requires this commission to examine into the condition and management and all other matters concerning the business of railroads in this State so far as the same pertains to the relation of such roads to the public and to the accommodation and security of persons doing business with such roads. We therefore consider it our duty when called upon to examine into the merits of al complaints, such as the one filed in this case, and to make such recommendations to the railroad company complained against as may seem to be just and reasonable in the particular case. We are of the opinion that it is the duty of the respondent in this case to furnish, run and operate a separate passenger train each way (Sundays excepted) over its railroad extending from Kankakee, Illinois, to Seneca, Illi- nois; that such train should be started from Kankakee at such an hour in the forenoon as will enable it to arrive at Seneca in time to make connection with the north bound train on the Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific Railroad, and that returning it should leave Seneca after the arrival of the southbound train on said Rock Island Railroad, which is due to arrive at Seneca at 3:18 p. m. We therefore recommend that the respondent within thirty days of the date of this order caused to be placed and operated on this Kankakee and Seneca branch, in addition to the mixed trains now being operated by it on said line, a daily passenger train (Sundays excepted) suitable and sufficient to carry all passengers with their necessary baggage in comfort and security and at a reasonable speed; also that such arrangements be made by the company as will relieve train No. 216 and train No. 215 from doing switching at intermediate stations, so that passengers going east in the morning and 169 desiring to return in the afternoon may have reasonable and fair accommo- dations on such trains. Dated this 26th day of January, A. D. 1908. W. H. BOYS, Chairman. B. A. ECKHABT, Commissioner. J. A. WlLLOUGHBY. Carbondale Mill and Elevator Co., Carbondale, 111., vs. Illinois Central R. R. Co. Complaint of Excessive Switching Charge at Carbondale. Petition filed November 19, 1907. November 29, 1907, complaint dismissed at request of petitioner. Village of Crainville, 111. vs. Illinois Central R. R. Co. Complaint of Having no Depot Facilities at Crainville, III. Petition filed November 28, 1907. December 10, 1907, case set for hearing before the commission for date of January 7, 1908. 170 INDEX. CROSSINGS. Illinois Transfer Railroad Co. vs. Louisville, Evansvllle & St. Louis Consolidated R. R. Co. Wlnstanley Park 3.7 Baltimore & Ohio Southwestern R. R. Co. vs. Jacksonville & St. Louis Ry Co Shattuc , .' 7.3 Chicago & Alton Railroad Co. vs. Terre Haute & Indianapolis R. R. Co. Mlnier. 9-10 Chicago & Alton Railroad Co. vs. Terre Haute & Indianapolis R. R. Co. Atlanta 10-11 Chicago & Alton Railway Co. vs. Illinois Central R. R. Co. Mason City 11-12 Chicago & Alton Railway Co. vs. Illinois Central R. R. Co. Lincoln 12-13 Chicago & Alton Railway Co. vs. Chicago, Peoria & St. Louis Ry. Co. of Illinois Bridge Junction, East St. Louis 14-15 Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Ry. Co. vs. Alpheus P. Goddard, Alpheus J. Goddard and The Preeport General Electric Co. Freeport 16-19 The Aurora, Elgin & Chicago Ry. Co. vs. The Suburban Railroad Co., Chicago Terminal Transfer R. R. Co.. The Lake Street Elevated R. R. Co., and The Chicago & Harlem Ry. Co. Crossings Nos. 1, 2 and 3, Chicago 19-35 Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Ry Co. vs. Freeport Railway, Light & Power Co. Freeport 47-52 Chicago & Alton Railway Co. vs. St. Louis & Springfield Railway Co. Carlln- ville 1 53-54 Chicago & Northwestern Railway Co. vs. Wisconsin Central Railway Co. Desplaines 55 Southern Railway Co. vs. Louisville & Nashville Railroad Co. North Belleville. 56 Louisville & Nashville Railroad Co. vs. East St. Louis Railway Co. Seventh Street, East St. Louis, 111 67-69 Louisville & Nashville R. R. Co. vs. East St. Louis & Suburban Ry. Co. French Village 69-72 The Wabash Railroad Co. vs. Bloomington, Pontlac & Joliet Electric Ry. Co. Pontiac 72-74 Illinois Central Railroad Co. vs. Bloomington, Pontiac & Joliet Electric Ry. Co. Pontiac 72-74 Danville & Indiana Harbor R. R. Co. 'vs. The Chicago Southern R. R. Co. > Danville 74 Illinois Northern Ry. Co. vs. Chicago & Illinois Western Ry. Co. Corwith 75 Macoupin County Railway Co. vs. St. Louis & Springfield Ry. Co. Benld ,75 Chicago & Alton Railway Co. vs. Springfield & St. Louis Railway Co. lies 76 Chicago & Alton Railway Co. vs. Springfield & St. Louis Railroad Co. Carlin- ville Amended Order ; 76-77 Vandalia Railroad Co. vs. Chicago, Bloomington & Decatur Ry. Co. Maroa.... 77 Marion & Harrisburg Railway Co. vs. Illinois Central Railroad, Chicago & Eastern Illinois R. R. Co., and Chicago, Paduka & Memphis R. R. Co. Marion. 77 Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Ry. Co. vs. St. Louis & Northeastern Ry. Co. Gillespie 77 Northern and Southern Illinois Railroad Co. vs. St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Ry. Co. Herrin 78 Illinois Central Railroad Co. vs. St. Louis & Springfield Traction and St. Louis & Northeastern Ry. Co. Litchfleld 78 Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Ry. Co. vs. St. Louis & Springfield Ry. Co. and St. Louis & Northeastern Ry. Co. Litchfleld 79 Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Ry. Co. vs. St. Louis & Northeastern Ry. Co. Litchfleld ,79 The Rockford Belt Railway Co. vs. The Illinois Central Railroad Co. Rockford. 79-80 Index Continued. PAGE. Toledo, St. Louis & Western Railroad Co. vs. Danville, Urbana & Champaign Ky. Co. Ridge Farm 80 Chicago & Eastern Illinois Railroad Co. vs. Chicago Heights Street Railway Co. Chicago Heights 80 Illinois Central Railroad Co. vs. Union County Traction & Power Co. Anna. . . 81 Michigan Central Railroad Co. vs. Chicago & Southern Traction Co. Chi- cago Heights 82 Illinois Central Railroad Co. vs. Chicago, Bloomington & Decatur Ry. Co. Clinton 82 Chicago & Southern Traction Co. vs. Illinois Central Railroad Co. 157th Street, Harvey 83-85 Louisville & Nashville R. R. Co. vs. St. Louis & Northeastern Ry. Co. 15th Street, East St. Louis 85 Illinois Central Railroad Co. vs. Chicago, Bloomington & Decatur Ry. Co. Clin- ton 80 Illinois Central Railroad Co. vs. Aurora, Elgin & Chicago Ry. Co. Hillside... 86 Illinois Central Railroad Co. vs. Herrin & Carterville Ry. Co. Herrin 8tt Michigan Central Railroad Co. vs. Chicago & Southern Traction Co. Chicago Heights 87 Louisville & Nashville RaUroad Co. vs. Baltimore & Ohio Southwestern R. R. Co. Protection of crossing at Enfleld 88-89 Venice Terminal Railroad C. vs. Danville & Edwardsville Terminal R. R. Co. Venice 89 Elgin, Joliet & Eastern Railway Co. vs. Chicago & Southern Traction Co. Chicago Heights 91-92 Chicago & Alton Railway Co. vs. Danville & Edwardsvillc Terminal Co. -Venice. 92 Danville & Edwardsville Terminal Ry. Co. vs. Venice Terminal Ry. Co. Venice. 93 Hammond Belt Railway Co. vs. South Chicago & Southern Railroad Co. Calumet Park 93 Chicago & Alton Railroad Co. and Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Co. vs. The Jacksonville Railway & Light Co. and the Illinois Western Ry. Company- Jacksonville 93 Chicago & Alton Railroad Co. vs. The Jacksonville Railway & Light Co. and The Illinois Western Ry. Co. 2% miles south of Jacksonville 93 South Chicago & Southern R. R. Co. vs. The Hammond Belt Ry. Co. Calumet Park 94 Chicago & Alton Railroad Co. vs. Springfield & St. Louis Ry. Co. West Street, Carlinville 94 Louisville & Nashville Railroad Co. vs. St. Louis & Northeastern Ry. Co. 15tt> Street, East St. Louis 116 Illinois Central Railroad Co. vs. Chicago, Bloomington & Decatur Ry. Co. Clinton . 116 Illinois Central Railroad Co. vs. Aurora, Elgin & Chicago Ry. Co. Hillside 116 Chicago & Alton Railway Co. vs. Danville & Edwardsville Terminal Ry. Co. Venice 116 Hammond Belt Railway Co. vs. South Chicago & Southern R. R. Co. Calumet Park 118 Chicago & Alton Railway Co. and Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Ry. Co. vs. The Jacksonville Railway & Light Co. and The Illinois Western Ry. Co. Jacksonville 118 Chicago & Alton Ry. Co. vs. The Jacksonville Railway & dight Co. and The Illinois Western Railway Co. 2% miles south of Jacksonville IIS South Chicago & Southern R. R. Co. vs. Hammond Belt Ry. Co. Calumet Park. 110 Chicago & Alton Railway Co. vs. St. Louis & Springfield Ry. Co. West Street Carlinville 119 Chicago & Southern Traction Co. vs Illinois Central R. R. Co. 157th Street, Harvey . 119-120 Michigan Central Railroad Co. vs Chicago & Southern Traction Co. Chicago Heights 120 Elgin, Joliet & Eastern Ry. Co. vs. Chicago & Southern Traction Co. Chicago Heights 120 Illinois Central Railroad Co. vs. Coal Belt Electric Railway Co. Herrin 120-122 Supplemental Order Herrin 122-123 Toledo, St. Louis & Western R. R. Co. vs St. Louis & Illinois Belt Railway Co. Edwardsville 123 St. Louis & Illinois Belt Ry. Co. vs. Toledo, St. Louis & Western R. R, Co. Edwardsville 123 172 Index Continued. Cairo & Thebes Railroad Co. vs. Eastern Illinois & Missouri Railroad Co., Chicago & Eastern Illinois R. R. Co., and Illinois Central Railroad Co. Santa Fe...l24-12T Springfield Belt Railway Co. vs Chicago & Alton Railroad Co. lies Junction. .127-129 Decatur, Sullivan & Mattoon Traction Co. vs. Vandalia R. R. Co. Hervey City. 129-130 Cairo & Thebes Railroad Co. vs. Southern Illinois & Missouri Bridge Co , Illinois Central R. R. Co., St. Louis Southwestern R. R. Co.. St. Louis, Iron Moun- tain & Southern Ry. Co., and Chicago & Eastern Illinois R. R. Co. Petition for track connection at Thebes 137-142 Peoria, Lincoln and Springfield Traction Co. vs. Chicago & Alton Ry. Co. Mlnier 144 Peoria, Lincoln & Springfield Traction Co. vs. Chicago & Alton R. R. Co. be- tween Minier and Hopedale 144-145 Supplemental Order 145-146 Peoria, Lincoln & Springfield Traction Co. vs. Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Ry. Co. Mackinaw 146-147 Supplemental Order , 147 Peoria, Lincoln & Springfield Traction Co. vs. Vandalia R. R. Co. Mackinaw. .147-148 Supplemental Order 148-149 Kensington & Eastern Railroad Co. vs. Pittsburgh, Ft. Wayne & Chicago Ry. Co. et al Burnham 153-156 The Chicago Southern Ry. Co. Protection of crossings on the Milford & Free- land and Rossville & Judyville Branches of the Chicago & Eastern Illinois R. R. Co 157 The Chicago Southern Ry. Co. Protection of crossing with Toledo, Peoria & Western Ry. Co 157-158 Chicago, Wilmington & Vermilion Coal Co. vs. St. Louis & Springfield Ry. Co. County Line, Sangamon and Macoupiu counties 159-160 Joliet & Southern Traction Co. vs. Chicago & Alton R. R. Co., Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Ry. Co., Chicago, Lake Shore & Eastern Ry. Co., and Elgin, Joliet & Eastern Ry. Co. Joliet 160-164 Mississippi Valley Electric Ry. Co. vs. The Wabash R. R. Co., and the Toledo, Peoria & Western Ry. Co. Carthage and Elvaston 164 COMPLAINTS. D. H. Curry & Co., Mason City, Illinois, vs. Illinois Central R. R. Co. Discrimi- nation in distribution of cars 38-43 C. L. Aygarn, Pontiac, vs. Illinois Central Railroad Co. Discrimination In the distribution of cars 44 C. L. Aygarn, Pontiac vs. Wabash Railroad Co. Discrimination in the distribution of cars 44-45 L. M. Hammond vs. Lake Shore & Michigan Southern Ry. Co., Illinois Central Railroad Co., Baltimore & Ohio R. R. Co., and Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Ry. Co. Excessive Switching Charges 72 National Mining Co. vs. Louisville & Nashville Railroad Co. Excessive Switch- ing Charges 72 Citizens of Fairfleld, 111. vs. Southern Railway Insufficient train service 74 Sandoval Coal & Mining Co. vs. Baltimore & Ohio Southwestern R. R. Co. Excessive Switching Charges at Sandoval 77-78 The Alton Lime & Cement Co. vs. The Chicago, Peoria & St. Louis Ry. Co. of Illinois Overcharge on switching 82 Bolivia Farmers Grain Co. vs. Cincinnati, Hamilton & Dayton Railroad Co. Petition for track connection 83 The Wabash Railroad Co. et al Petition for modification of Rule 23 85 Charles R. Price Co. vs Illinois Central Railroad Co. Discrimination 85 Alton Lime & Cement Co. vs. Chicago, Peoria & St. Louis Ry. Co. of Illinois, and Mississippi Valley Coal Co. vs. Chicago, Peoria & St. Louis Ry. Co. of Illinois Excessive Switching Charges 86 Geo. W. McCabe, Pres. Village of Chatsworth, vs. Toledo, Peoria & Western Ry. Co. Failure to switch cars 89 The Farmers Elevator Co., Lowder, vs. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Ry. Co. Refusal to furnish cars 89 A. J. Webber, vs. Illinois Central Railroad Co. Overcharge for switching at Galatia 90-91 Edwin Beggs, Ashland, vs. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Co. Exces- sive Minimum Weights 92 City of Staunton vs. The Wabash Railroad Co. Excessive Switching Charges.. 93 Ehlebe Hunt & Co., Warsaw, vs. Toledo, Peoria & Western Ry. Co. Insufficient train service 94 173 Index Continued. PAGE. Sandoval Coal & Mining Co. vs. Baltimore & Ohio Southwestern R. R. Co. Petition for re-hearing 94 Illinois Central Railroad Co., Baltimore & Ohio Southwestern R. R. Co. and Southern Ry. Co. Petition for modiiication of Rule No. 23 94 Same Case as above .> 119 Preliminary Decision of the Commission 158-159 Citizens of Granite City vs. Chicago & Alton R. R. Co., Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Ry. Co., Chicago, Peoria & St. Louis Ry. Co., and The Wabash Railroad Co. 'Insufficient depot facilities at Granite City 95 Final disposition of the case 119 Sparta Gas and Electric Co. vs. Illinois Southern Railway Co. Excessive switch- ing charges 123. Chaffin Coal Co. vs. Michigan Central Railroad Co., and Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Ry. Co. Excessive switching charges. 142 L. L. Emmerson et al. vs. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy R. R. Co. Petition for - depot and side track facilities at Eminerson, 111 142 W. A. Challacombe vs. Chicago, Peoria & St. Louis Railway Co. of Illinois Com- plaint of removal of station and side tiack at Challacombe 142 Johnson Transfer & Fuel Co., Bloomington, vs. Lake Erie & Western R. R. Co. Excessive switching charges 142 Henry I. Green vs. Baltimore & Ohio Southwestern R. R. Co. Excessive charge on L. C. L. shipments of Lime Stone Dust 143 Southern Illinois Milling & Elevator Co. vs. Illinois Central Railroad Co. Ex- cessive switching charges 143-144 Citizens of Oregon vs. Chicago & Northwestern Ry. Co., and Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Ry. Co. Petition for "Y" connection at Rochelle 144 Frank M. Annis, Aurora, vs. Illinois, Iowa & Minnesota Ry. Co. Insufficient pas- senger train service . .-.-.- 144 Michael C. Hayes vs. Chicago & Northwestern Ry. Co. Extortion and unjust discrimination, switching charges 149 Galesville Grain & Coal Co. vs. The Wabash R. R. Co. Discrimination in dis- tribution of cars 150-152 Village of Mt. Olive vs. Illinois Central R. R. Co. Excessive switching charges. 152-153 Applegate & Lewis Coal Co. vs. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Ry. Co. Dis- crimination in the distribution of cars 156 M. D. Harmon vs. Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Loius Ry. Co. Depot facilities at Norris City 157 F. H. Robertson, Essex, vs. Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Ry. Co. Insufficient passenger service on Kankakee & Seneca Branch 164-169 Carbondale Mill & Elevator Co. vs. Illinois Central R. R. Co. 'Excessive switch- ing charges 169 Village of Crainville, 111. vs. Illinois Central R. R. Co. No depot facilities 169 MISCELLANEOUS. The People of the State of Illinois vs. Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Ry. Co. Unjust discrimination, long and short haul 13-14 St. Louis Traffic Bureau and others vs. all railroads terminating at East St. Louis, 111. Reconsignment of grain 36-38 Order of the Commission in the matter of blocking frogs, switches, guard rails, etc 43 The Shirley Farmers Grain & Coal Co. vs. The Chicago & Alton Railway Co. Petition for track connection at Shirley 45-47 Order of the Commission in the matter of protection of frogs, guard rails, heels of switches, etc 52-53 Notice of Commission to Merchants Exchange, St. Louis, Mo., In the matter of State Weigh Master at East St. Louis, 111 54-55 Thomas Aiken vs. Railroad and Warehouse Commission Injunction to prevent Commission and its grain inspectors from grading Pacific Coast Wheat as Red Winter Wheat 74 St. Louis Hay & Grain Co. vs. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Ry. Co. et al. Reconsignment Charge at East St. Louis 75 St. Louis Hay & Grain Co. vs. Southern Railway Co. et al. Excessive car service charge 75 Decree of the City Court of East sV Louis, and Order of Commission in the matter of tare allowance on grain received at East St. Louis 116-118 174 Concluded. PAGE. Atchlson, Topeka & Santa Fe Ry. Co. vs. Elgin, Jollet & Eastern Ry. Co/ Findings of Commission acting as Board of Arbitration in crossing contro- versy at Coal City, 111 131-133 Illinois Central R. R. Co. vs. Pittsburgh, Ft Wayne & Chicago Ry. Co., Pennsylvania Co., Lake Shore & Michigan Southern Ry. Co., New York, Chi- cago & St. Louis Railroad Co., and City of Chicago Separation of grades at Grand Crossing 133-137 OPINIONS OF ATTORNEY GENERAL. Opinion of Hon. Rowland J. Hamlin in the jurisdiction of the Commission over Railway Crossings 1 ... 57-66 Opinion of the Hon. W. H. Stead in relation to application of Safety Appliance Act to Interurban Railways 99-100 Opinion of Hon. W. H. Stead in relation to position of grab-irons or hand-holds. 100 Opinion of Hon. W. H. Stead in relation to interchange of business between railroads at "Y" connections 100-102 Opinion of Hon. W. H. Stead on jurisdiction of Commission to compel railroad to continue depot facilities 102 Opinion of Hon. W. H. Stead In relation to interchange of cars at junctions. . .102-104 Opinion of Hon. W. H. Stead in relation to jurisdiction of Commission over Express Companies to prescribe maximum rates of charges 104 Opinion of Hon. W. H. Stead in relation to jurisdiction of Commission to com- pel continuance of side track facilities 105 Opinion of Hon. W. H. Stead in relation to jurisdiction of Commission over demurrage charges 105-1 07 Opinion of Hon. W. H. Stead in relation to jurisdiction of Commission over car distribution 107-108 APPELLATE COURT DECISIONS. In the case of Illinois Central Railroad Co. vs. St. Louis & Northeastern Railway Co, In the matter of crossing at Litchneld 109-115