HPrNRLF
B 3 113 17^
'it'.
^
A DIGEST
OF THE DECISIONS OF THE
RAILROAD COMMISSION
OF
WISCONSIN
* <
COVERING THE DECISIONS PUBLISHED IN VOLUMES
I TO XV. INCLUSIVE, OF THE COMMISSION'S
OFFICIAL REPORTS.
1 1 -1
JULY 20, 1905, TO FEBRUARY 4, 1915
COMPILED BY
HAROLD L. GEISSE
SECRETARY
y
OEFf.
. r •
t /
0^' {/^
MEMBERS
OF THE
RAILROAD COMMISSION
OF WISCONSIN
During the Period Covered by this Digest
JOHN BARNES :....July 7, 1905, to Aug. 1, 1907
B. H. MEYER July 5, 1905, to Jan. 1, 1911
HALFORD ERICKSON July 21, 1905, to May 1, 19ia
JOHN H. ROEMER August 6, 1907, to Feb. 1, 1915
DAVID HARLOWE Jan. 20, 1911, to Feb. 20, 1915
4 ..
V ■
PREFACE.
In the compilation of this digest the aim has been to state
briefly and yet clearly the principles and facts set forth in
the decisions of the Commission published in Volumes I to
XV, inclusive, of the Commission's Reports. Where feasible
the exact language of the Commission has been used.
The general plan of the Index-Digest found at the back of
each volume of the Reports has been followed, but several
departures therefrom are to be noted. Wherever possible
the repetition of paragraph headings has been ehminated
and where a portion of a paragraph heading which is perti-
nent recurs, it has been omitted and the ommission is indi-
cated by a dash. The full paragraph heading and the sub-
titles are, however ^ repeated at the beginning of the first
paragraph on each left-hand page. The paragraph headings
have also been shortened by the introduction , of a more
detailed system of subheadings. The type used in the titles
and headings has been selected with an idea of readily
marking the various divisions and subdivisions. The inclu-
sion of an index is deemed superfluous in that the subject
titles are arranged alphabetically and supplemented by a
system of detailed cross-references which, in fact, makes
the digest an index.
In the table of cases reported the cases are classified ac-
cording to the kind of utility affected, and where more than
one plant of a joint utility is concerned the case is listed in
each of the classes affected. Corporate names containing
the name of an individual are listed under both the given
name and the surname. Names of municipal corporations
are not listed under the prefix "City of," "Town of," etc.
In the localities index the cases affecting a locality are
listed alphabetically according to the kind of service fur-
nished, i. e., electric railway, electric utility, express, etc.
362083
ABBREVIATIONS.
Appl Application
Exten Extension
Invest Investigation
R. C Wisconsin Railroad Commission Reports
Stats Statutes
11 »
DIGEST
OF THE DECISIONS OF THE
RAILROAD COMMISSION
OF
WISCONSIN
JULY 20, 1905. TO FEBRUARY 4. 1915
>
ABANDONMENT
Of equipment of railroad, see Railroads, 1, 74-77; Warehouses, 3.
Of line or track, see Street Railways, 5, 9-10.
ABILITY OF COMMODITY TO PAY
As element considered in making railroad rates, see Rates — Railroad,
106.
ABSORPTION OF CHARGES
Question of absorption immaterial in determining interstate or intrastate
character of switching service, see Transportation, 6.
Railroad switching charges, see Rates — Railroad, 311; Reparation,
97-99, 113.
ACCIDENTS
Installation of automatic air brakes for prevention of accidents, see
Street Railways, 30.
Liability for accidents, in joint use of street railway tracks, see Street
Railways, 25.
Prevention of accidents in joint use of street railway tracks, see Street
Railways, 25.
Report to Commission of accidents, see Railroad Commission, 99;
Street Railways, 1.
) * ^ ^, I
6 Accounting. -^Compliance with accounting requirements
ACCOUNTING
I. COMPLIANCE WITH ACCOUNTING REQUIREMENTS.
II. COST ACCOUNTING— DETERMINATION OF UNIT COSTS.
a. In general. g. Joint utilities.
b. Electric utilities. h. Railroads.
c. Express companies. i. Street railways.
d. Gas utilities. j. Telephone utilities.
e. Heating utilities. k. Water utilities.
f. Interurban railways.
III.' UNIFORM ACCOUNTS,
a. Electric utilities.
I. COMPLIANCE WITH ACCOUNTING REQUIREMENTS.
ELECTRIC UTILITIES.
1. Increase in rates deferred until accounting data of utility conform
to standards prescribed by the Commission. In re AppL Neshkoro Lt. Sc
P. Co., 1913, 13 R. C'. 52, 68.
2. Reduction in rates ordered notwithstanding uncertainty due to
failure of utility to keep accounts required by law. City of Rhinelander v.
Rhinelander Ltg. Co., 1912, 9 R. C. 406, 436.
TELEPHONE UTILITIES.
3. Application for increase in rates dismissed because of lack of ac-
counting data required by law. In re AppL Troy Sc Honey Creek Tel. Co.,
1911, 6 R. C. 549; In re AppL State Long Distance Tel. Co., 1912, 8 R. C.
497, 503.
4. Increase in rates deferred until accounting data of utility conform
to standards prescribed by the Commission. In re Appt. Plymouth
Tel. ExcL, 1912, 9 R. C. 169, 178; In re AppL Platteville, Reivey & Ellenboro
TeL Co., 1912, 10 R. C. 534, 542; In re AppL Peoples' Tel. Co., 1913,
11 R. C. 499, 506; In re AppL Deerfield TeL Co., 1913, 12 R. C. 672, 675.
WATER UTILITIES.
5. Reasonableness of rates not finally determined because of lack of
accounting data required by law. Fitzgerald et al. v. City of Tomahawk,
1911, 8 R. C. 40, 55; Lothrop el al. v. Village of Sharon, 1912," 8 R. C. 479,
482, 493-496.
II. COST ACCOUNTING— DETERMINATION OF UNIT COSTS.
a. IN GENERAL
Apportionment of expenses over output, capacity and consumer
expenses.
6. In making the apportionment of the numerous items of expenses
over output, capacity and consumer expenses general outlines must be
used with care, since local conditions may to a greater or less degree in-
fluence the bases used. The nature of the power used, the character of
the management and superintendence, the methods of accounting, and
the efficiency and physical make-up of the plant are factors which enter
largely into a consideration of the apportionment of expenses. City of
Accounting. — Cost accounting. — Determ. of unit costs 7
Manitowoc v. Manitowoc El. Lt. Co., 1910, 5 R. C. 360, 376; In re Appl.
Jefferson Mun. El. Lt. & W. Plant, 1910, 5 R. C. 555, 564.
a. IN GENERAL — Continued
Apportionment of expenses among the different departments or
branches of the service — Indirect expenses.
7. It is a general cost accounting principle that indirect expenses
common to two or more services or general in nature should be appor-
tioned on the bas^s of the direct expenses to which they are most closely
related. In re Invest. Express Rates, 1913, 12 R. C. 1. 32.
b. ELECTRIC UTILITIES.
Apportionment of expenses over output, capacity and consumer
expenses.
8. In order that every consumer shall pay his just share of the ex-
penses, it is necessary to apportion the expenses of the plant between the
capacity and output costs and determine what part of each class of ex-
pense shall be charged against the consumer. In re Appl. Jefferson
Mun. El. Lt. cfc W. Plant, 1910, 5 R. C. 555, 564. Apportionments made
in: In re Appl- La Crosse Gas & El. Co., 1907, 2 R. G. 3, 23; In re Appl.
Fox R. Millg. <Sc P. Co., 1907, 2 R. C. 135, 142; In re Appl. Alma EL Lt.
Co., 1907, 2 R. C. 144, 147; In re Appl. Merrill Ry. & Ltg. Co., 1907, 2 R. G.
148, 157; Dodgeville v. Dodgeville El. Lt. dc P. Co., 1908, 2 R. G. 392, 410;
In re Appl. Stoughton Mun. El. Lt. Plant, 1909, 3 R. G. 484, 490-491; In re
Men. & Mar. Lt. & Tr. Co., 1909, 3 R. G. 778, 831-832; In re Appl. Cum-
berland Mun. El. Lt. Plant, 1909, 4 R. G. 214, 219; State Journal Prtg. Co.
et al. V. Madison Gas Sc El. Co., 1910, 4 R. G. 501, 662; City of Ripon v.
Ripon Lt. & W. Co., 1910, 5 R. G. 1, 29-30; Citg of Manitowoc v. Mani-
towoc El. Lt. Co., 1910, 5 R. G. 360, 376; In re Appl. Ml. Horeb El. Lt. Co.,
1910, 6 R. G. 44, 49; City of Whitewater v. Whitewater El. Lt. Co., 1910,
6 R. G. 132, 141; In re Appl. Red Cedar Val. El. Co., 1911, 6 R. G. 717,
740; In re Appl. La Crosse Gas <Sc El. Co., 1911, 8 R. G. 138, 211; Superior
Comm'l. Club et al. v. Superior W. Lt. Sc P. Co., 1912, 10 R. G. 704, 790;
In re Appl. Village of Arcadia, 1912, 11 R. G. 216, 220; In re Appl. Colum-
bus W. & Lt. Comm., 1913, 11 R. G. 449, 459; In re Appl. Ft. Atkinson W.
& Lt. Comm., 1913, 12 R. G. 260, 300; Hood et al. v. Monroe El Co., 1914,
14 R. G. 227, 235; In re Service Sz Rates Stevens Pt. Ltg. Co., 1914, 14 R. G.
350, 368; In re Appl. Sun Prairie Mun. El. Plant, 1914, 15 R. G. 189, 195;
In re Appl. Rhinelander P. Co., 1915, 15 R. G. 783, 809.
Bases of apportionment.
9. The variable or output costs are sometimes defined as those ex-
penses which depend on the output of current, and at other times as those
expenses which would stop if the plant stopped operations. The demand
or fixed expenses are sometimes defined as those expenses which are inde-
pendent of the output of current, and again as expenses which, like taxes,
depreciation, interest on the investment, insurance and a few other similar
items, would continue even if operations were stopped. There is a great
deal to be said on both sides of both of these definitions. Experience,
however, teaches that neither can always be fairly adhered to without
reference to local conditions. Under certain conditions the former ap-
8 Accounting. — Cost accounting. — Determ. of unit costs
pears to be the most equitable; under other conditions, again, the latter
appears to lead to results that are just to all concerned. Where water
power is used, the former method has often been found to be the fairest.
Ross ei al. v. Burkhardt Millg. & EL P. Co., 1910, 5 R. C. 139, 154.
b. ELECTRIC UTILITIES — Contined.
Apportionment of expenses over output, capacity and consumer
expenses — Further apportionment among the different
classes of the service.
10. On the cost theory each form of service should be charged with
the expenses of operation direct or proportional which it incurs, or one
class of service will be shifting its burdens and increasing the expenses of
another class. City of Ripon v. Ripon Lt. &: W. Co., 1910, 5 R. G. 1, 31.
Apportionments made in: Dodgeville v. Dodgeville EL Li. & P. Co., 1908,
2 R. C. 392, 412; In re Men. Sc Mar. Lt. & Tr. Co., 1909, 3 R. C. 778, 851;
City of Manitowoc v. Manitowoc EL Lt. Co., 1910, 5 R. C. 360, 374; In re
AppL Jefferson Mun. EL Lt. & W. Plant, 1910, 5 R. C. 555, 565; In re
AppL Durand Lt. Sc P. Co., 1911, 6 R. C. 334, 340; In re AppL Red Cedar
YaL EL Co., 1911, 6 R. C. 717, 750; City of Beloit v. Beloit W. G. & EL Co.,
1911, 7 R. C. 187, 256, 371; In re AppL La Crosse G. & EL Co., 1911,
8 R. C. 138, 212; In re AppL Waupaca EL Lt. & R. Co. and Waupaca,
1912, 8 R. C. 586, 604; City of Rhinelander v. Rhinelander Ltg. Co., 1912,
9 R. C. 406, 422; In re AppL Village of Whitehall, 1912, 9 R. C. 479, 481;
Superior Comm'l Club et al. v. Superior W. Lt. <Sc P. Co., 1912, 10 R. C.
704, 790; In re AppL New Glarus Mun. EL Lt. & W. Plant, 1912, 11 R. C.
53, 55-56; In re Invest Evansville Mun. EL Lt. Sc W. Plant, 1912, 11 R. C.
197, 203-204; In re AppL Village of Arcadia, 1912, 11 R. C. 216, 220-221;
In re AppL Chetek Lt. 6c P. Co., 1912, 11 R. G. 227, 231-232; In re AppL
Columbus W. & Lt. Comm., 1913, 11 R. G. 449, 460; In re AppL Ft. Atkin-
son W. & Lt. Comm., 1913, 12 R. G. 260, 295-296, 298; City of Green Bay
V. Green Bay G. Sc El. Co., 1913, 12 R. G. 324, 330-331; Douglass et al. v.
Equitable EL Lt. Co., 1913, 12 R. G. 337, 350; In re Invest. EL Rates in
Oconto, 1913, 12 R. G. 584, 595; In re AppL Neshkoro Lt. <Sc P. Co., 1913,
13 R. G. 52, 62; City of Waukesha v. Waukesha G. & El. Co., 1913, 13 R. G.
100, 121-123; In re Madison G. & EL Co., 1913, 13 R. G. 259, 261-262; In
re AppL ML HorebHL Lt.&P. Co., 1914, 13 R. G. 653, 658, 660; Hoodetal.
v. Monroe EL Co., 1914, 14 R. G. 227, 235; In re Service and Rates Stevens
PL L^. Co., 1914, 14 R. G. 350, 360, 365; Kittleson et al. v. Elroy Mun. W.
<Sc Lt. Plant, 1914, 14 R. G. 485. 492; City of Watertown v. Watertown G. &
EL Co., 1914, 14 R. G. 604, 613; Jones et aL v. Berlin Public Service Co.,
1914, 15 R. G. 121, -134; In re AppL Sun Prairie Mun. EL Plant, 1914,
15 R. G. 189, 193; In re AppL United Heat, Lt. & P. Co. of Delavan, 1914, 15
R. G. 505, 512; In re Invest. Waterloo Mun. W. & EL Plant, 1914, 15
R. C. 534, 542.
Collection expenses.
11. Gollection expenses must be borne by the commercial branches
and the charge to each depends upon the number of consumers. City of
Manitowoc v. Manitowoc El. Lt. Co., 1910, 5 R. G. 360, 378; Ross et al. v.
Burkhardt Millg. & EL P. Co., 1910, 5 R. G. 139, 154.
Accounting. — Cost accounting. — Determ. of unit costs 9
Commercial expenses. ,
12. Commercial expenses are made up to a large extent of items which
are directly chargeable to the particular circuit or service. Citg of Mani-
towoc V. Manitowoc EL Lt. Co., 1910, 5 R. C. 360, 378.
Consumption expenses.
13. Consumption expenses are to a large extent directly charge-
able to the particular circuit or service. Ross et al. v. Burkhardt Millg. Sc
El P. Co., 1910, 5 R. C. 139, 154; City of Manitowoc u. Manitowoc EL Lt.
Co., 1910, 5 R. C. 360, 378; In re AppL Red Cedar VaL EL Co., 1911,
6 R. C. 717, 746, 748.
14. Consumption expenses apportioned on the basis of demand
among the different classes of service. In re AppL New Glarus Mun. El.
Lt& W. Plant, 1912, 11 R. G. 53, 56.
Depreciation.
15. Depreciation apportioned on the basis of the value of the prop-
erty devoted to each class of service. Ross et al. v. Burkhardt Millg. &
EL P. Co., 1910, 5 R. C. 139, 154; City of Manitowoc v. Manitowoc EL Lt
Co., 1910, 5 R. C. 360, 378; In re AppL Jefferson Mun. EL Lt. Sc W.
Plant, 1910, 5 R. G. 555, 564; City of Sheboygan v. Sheboygan Ry. & EL
Co., 1911, 6 R. C. 353, 365; In re AppL Red Cedar VaL EL Co., 1911,
6 R. C. 717, 747; In re Jt. AppL Waupaca El. Lt. & R. Co. and Waupaca,
1912, 8 R. C. 586, 607; In re AppL New Glarus Mun. EL Lt. & W. Plant,
1912, 11 R. C. 53, 57; In re AppL Ft. Atkinson W. Sc Lt. Comm., 1913, 12
R. C. 260, 295; Jones et al. v. Berlin Public Service Co., 1914, 15 R. C. 121,
129, 130.
Distribution system expenses.
16. Distribution system expenses apportioned on basis of miles of
wire used for each class of service. Ross et al. v. Burkhardt Millg. Sc El.
P. Co., 1910, 5 R. G. 139, 154; City of Manitowoc v. Manitowoc EL Lt. Co.,
1910, 5 R. C. 360, 378; In re AppL Jefferson Mun. EL Lt. Sc W. Plant,
1910, 5 R. G. 555, 564; In re AppL Red Cedar VaL EL Co., 1911, 6 R. C.
717, 745; In re Jt. AppL Waupaca EL Lt. Sc R. Co. and Waupaca, 1912,
8 R. C. 586, 605.
17. Apportioned on basis of demand of each class of service. In re
AppL Red Cedar VaL EL Co., 1911, 6 R. G. 717, 746; In re AppL New
Glarus Mun. El. Lt. cfc W. Plant, 1912, 11 R. G. 53, 56-57.
Expenses of service outside of municipality.
18. The additional cost of service to consumers outside the munici-
pality was apportioned over output and capacity expenses and a further
apportionment made as between commercial lighting and power. In re
AppL Ft. Atkinson W. Sc Lt. Comm., 1913, 12 R. G. 260, 300.
General expenses.
19. General expenses, as an overhead charge, apportioned on the basis
of the direct expenses. Ross et al. v. Burkhardt Millg. Sc EL P. Co., 1910,
5 R. C. 139, 154-155; City of Manitowoc v. Manitowoc EL Lt. Co., 1910,
5 R. C. 360, 378; In re Ap,pL Darlington EL Lt. Sc W. P. Co., 1910, 5 R. G.
10 Accounting. — Cost accounting. — Determ. of unit costs
397, 411; 7/7 re Appl. Jefferson.Mun. El. Lt. & W. Plant, 1910, 5 R. G.
555, 564; City of Sheboygan v. Sheboygan Ry. & El. Co., 1911, 6 R. G. 353,
365; In re Appl. Red Cedar Val. El. Co., 1911, 6 R. C. 717, 746, 748; In re
Jt. Appl. Waupaca El. Lt. & R. Co. and Waupaca, 1912, 8 R. G. 586, 607.
b. ELECTRIC UTILITIES — Continued.
Apportionment of expenses over output, capacity and consumer
expenses — Further apportionment ^mong different classes
of the service — Insurance.
20. Insurance apportioned on basis of value of the property devoted
to each class of service. City of Manitowoc v. Manitowoc El. Lt, Co., 1910,
5 R. G. 360, 378; City of Sheboygan v. Sheboygan Ry. Sc El. Co., 1911,
6 R. G. 353, 365.
Interest.
21. Interest apportioned according to the value of the property used
for each class of service. Ross et al. v. Burkhardt Millg. Sc El. P. Co.,
1910, 5 R. G. 139, 154-155; City of Manitowoc v. Manitowoc El. Lt. Co.,
1910, 5 R. G. 360, 378; In re Appl. Jefferson Man. El. Lt. & W. Plant,
1910, 5 R. G. 555, 564; In re Appl. Red Cedar Val. El. Co., 1911, 6 R. G.
717, 747; In re Appl. New Glarus Mun. El. Lt. Sc W. Plant, 1912, 11 R. G.
53, 57; In re Appl. Ft. Atkinson W. Sc Lt. Comm., 1913, 12 R. G. 260,
295-296.
— — Meter expenses.
22. Meter expenses apportioned on basis of the number of meters in
service. City of Manitowoc v. Manitowoc El. Lt. Co., 1910, 5 R. G. 360, 378.
Municipal equipment rental.
23. Rental apportioned among classes of service in proportion to
value of property rented for each purpose. In re Appl. Red Cedar Val.
El. Co., 1911, 6 R. G. 717, 746-747.
Power expenses.
24. The power plant cost is made up of capacity and variable ex-
penses. In the distribution of these expenses among the various classes
of service the former should be based on the maximum demand and the
latter on the output of current. City of Sheboygan v. Sheboygan Ry. Sc
El. Co., 1911, 6 R. G. 353, 364; In re Jt. Appl. Waupaca El. Lt. Sc R. Co.
and Waupaca, 1911, 8 R. G. 586, 602.
Power generation expenses.
25. Station output expenses apportioned over the different classes of
service on the basis of current generated for each. Station capacity ex-
penses allotted to the different classes according to their relative demands
upon the station. Ross et al. v. Burkhardt Millg. Sc El. P. Co., 1910,
5 R. G. 139, 154; City of Manitowoc v. Manitowoc El. Lt. Co., 1910, 5 R. G.
360, 378; In re Appl. Jefferson Mun. El. Lt. Sc W. Plant, 1910, 5 R. G.
555, 564; City of Whitewater v. Whitewater El. Lt. Co., 1910, 6 R. G. 132,
141. 147; In re Appl. Red Cedar Val. El. Co., 1911, 6 R. G. 717, 742; In re
Appl. New Glarus Mun. El. Lt. Sc W. Plant, 1912, 11 R. G. 53, 55-57.
Accounting. — Cost accounting, — Determ. of unit costs 11
Street lighting (between ornamental and other).
26. Where there are two distinct classes of street Hghting, each oper-
ating on a different schedule, it is necessary to separate the expenses be-
tween the two. In re Appl. Columbus W. & Lt. Comm., 1913, 11 R. G.
449, 463.
Taxes.
^7. Taxes apportioned on basis of the value of the property devoted
to each class of service. Ross et al. v. Burkhardt Millg. & El. P. Co., 1910,
5 R. C. 139, 154-155; City of Manitowoc v. Manitowoc El. Lt. Co., 1910,
5 R. C. 360, 378; In re Appl. Darlington El. Lt. & W. P. Co., 1910, 5 R. C.
397, 411. City of Sheboygan v. Sheboygan Ry. Sc El. Co., 1911, 6 R. C.
353, 365; In re Appl. Red Cedar Val. El. Co., 1911, 6 R. C. 717, 747; In re
Jt. Appl. Waupaca El. Lt. Sc R. Co. and Waupaca, 1912, 8 R. C. 586, 607;
In re Appl. Ft. Atkinson W. Sc Lt. Comm., 1913, 12 R. C. 260, 295.
Transmission and transformation expenses.
28. The variable or output part of transmission and transformation
expenses was distributed over the different classes of service on the basis
of the current generated, while the demand part was apportioned accord-
ing to the estimated maximum demand of each class. Ross et al. v. Burk-
hardt Millg. Sc El. P. Co., 1910, 5 R. C. 139, 154.
Undistributed expenses.
29. Undistributed expenses must ordinarily be divided among the
different classes of service by methods more or less arbitrary. It is usual
to consider them as overhead costs and to apportion them according to the
ratios of the direct expenses. In re Appl. Red Cedar Val. El. Co., 1911,
6 R. C. 717, 746, 748; City of Sheboygan v. Sheboygan Ry. S: El. Co., 1911,
6 R. C. 353, 364-365; In re Jt. Appl. Waupaca El. Lt. & R. Co. and Wau-
paca, 1912, 8 R. C. 586, 607; Jones et al. v. Berlin Public Service Co., 1914,
15 R. C. 121, 129.
Further apportionment among various service districts.
30. Apportionment of expenses among districts served by utility.
Douglass et al. v. Equitable El. Lt. Co., 1913, 12 R. C. 337, 347-348; In re
Appl. Neshkoro Lt. Sc P. Co., 1913, 13 R. C. 52, 64. ^
Apportionment of value of physical property among the different
classes of the service.
31. Value of physical property apportioned among the different
classes of service. Dodgeville v. Dodgeville El. Lt. Sc P. Co., 1908, 2 R. C.
392, 398; In re Men. Sc Mar. Lt. Sc Tr. Co., 1909, 3 R. C. 778, 845; State
Journal Prtg. Co. v. Madison Gas Sc El. Co., 1910, 4. R. C. 501, 605; In re
Appl. Darlington El. Lt. Sc W. P. Co., 1910, 5 R. C. 397, 405; City of White-
water V. Whitewater El. Lt. Co., 1910, 6 R. C. 132, 134; In re Appl. Red
Cedar Val. El. Co., 1911, 6 R. C. 717, 724; City of Beloit v. Beloit W. G.
Sc El. Co., 1911, 7 R. C. 187, 372; City of Rhinelander v. Rhinelander Ltg.
Co., 1912, 9 R. C. 406, 414; In re Invest. Evamville Mun. El. Lt. Sc W. Plant,
1912, 11 R. C. 197, 201; In re Appl. Ft. Atkinson W. Sc Lt. Comm., 1913,
12 R. C. 260, 276; City of Green Bay v. Green Bay Gas Sc El. Co., 1913,
12 R. C. 324, 326-327; City of Watertown v. Wa^ertown G. Sc El. Co., 1914,
12 Accounting. — Cost accounting. — Determ. of unit costs
14 R. C. 604, 609; In re Appl. United Heat Lt. & P. Co. of Delavan, 1914,
15 R. C. 505, 510.
b. ELECTRIC UTILITIES — Continued.
Apportionment of value of physical property among the different
classes of service — Bases of apportionment.
32. Among the important factors which serve as bases for the appor-
tionment of the value of the parts of the plant common to two or more
classes of the service are the maximum demand, connected load, current
generated, miles of wire and poles, number of consumers, and direct ex-
penses. City of Manitowoc v. Manitowoc El. Lt. Co., 1910, 5 R. G. 369,
371; City of Sheboygan v. Sheboygan Ry. & El. Co., 1911, 6 R. C. 353, 359.
Operating data necessary for computing costs.
33. In addition to a correct statement of operating expenses it is-
necessary to have certain statistics of operation in order to correctly
adjust rates. State Journal Prtg. Co. et al. v. Madison Gas Sc El. Co., 1910,
4 R. G. 501, 673; City of Manitowoc v. Manitowoc El. Lt. Co., 1910, 5 R. G.
360, 370.
Prorating of output, capacity and consumer expenses. ^
34. Gapacity expenses depend on the demand or active load and
should therefore be borne by or distributed over this load. Output ex-
penses depend on the output and should therefore be borne by or distributed
over the output of current. In re Appl. Stoughton Mun. El. Lt. System,
1909, 3 R. G. 484, 491; In re Men. Sc Mar. Lt. Sc Tr. Co., 1909, 3 R. G.
778, 832, 868, 876; State Journal Prtg. Co. et al. v. Madison Gas & El. Co.,
1910, 4 R. G. 501, 663, 686; Ross et al. v. Burkhardt Millg. Sc El. P. Co.,
1910. 5 R. G. 139, 158, 161; In re Appl. Jefferson Mun. El. Lt. & W.
Plant, 1910, 5 R. G. 555, 569; In re Appl. Red Cedar Val. El. Co., 1911,
6 R. G. 717, 758, 761; City of Beloit v. Beloit W. G. <Sc El. Co., 1911, 7 R. G.
187, 368; In re Appl. La Crosse G. & El. Co., 1911, 8 R. G. 138, 219; City
of Rhinelander v. Rhinelander Ltg. Co., 1912, 9 R. G. 406, 423-424; Supe-
rior Comml. Club et al. v. Superior W. Lt. & P. Co., 1912, 10 R. G. 704,
797; In re Invest. EvansvilleMun.El. Lt. Sc W. Plant, 1912, 11 R. G. 197,
204-205; In re Village of Arcadia, 1912, 11 R. G. 216, 221; In re Appl.
Columbus W. Sc Lt. Comm., 1913, 11 R. G. 449, 462; In re Appl. Ft. Atkin-
son W. Sc Lt. Comm., 1913, 12 R. G. 260, 303-304, 306; In re Appl. Nesh-
koro Lt Sc P. Co., 1913, 13 R. G. 52, 63.
c. EXPRESS COMPANIES.
Apportionment of expenses between interstate and intrastate
business — Bases of apportionment.
35. The express company expenses other than the agency expenses
incurred at Wisconsin points were apportioned on various bases according
to the nature of the separate items. In re Invest. Express Rates, 1913,
12 R. G. 1, 32-36.
; Agency expenses incurred at Wisconsin points.
36. The agency expenses incurred at Wisconsin points by Wells
Fargo & Go. were apportioned between the intrastate and interstate
Accounting. — Cost accounting. — Determ. of unit costs 13
business on the basis of the number of waybills handled in each class of
business, the number of waybills being estimated from the average charges
per waybill for three months. In re Invest. Express Rates, 1913, 12 R. G.
1, 32.
37. All the apportionment of agency expenses for the American
Express Co. were made on the basis of the number of shipments handled,
the number handled during the year being based on the average charges
per shipment for the month of September 1909. In re Invest. Express
Rates, 1913, 12 R. C. 1. 35.
Railroad cost.
38. All but 1 or 2 per cent of the operations of Wells Fargo & Go.
were on the lines of the G. M. & St. P. R. Go. The costs incurred by this
road in the performance of its part of the intrastate express service were
determined by ascertaining the total cost, including taxes and 7 per cent
on the cost of reproduction new of all operations in Wisconsin separating
the passenger train from the freight costs, and apportioning the separate
items of passenger train costs to the total express business and then to the
intrastate express business on the proper bases. The other railroads and
electric lines carry such a small percentage of Wells Fargo & Go's business
that separate analysis of their costs was not attempted. In re Invest.
Express Rates, 1913, 12 R. G. 1, 33.
d. GAS UTILITIES.
Apportionment of expenses — Among localities served.
39. Where a utility supplies service in more than one municipality
an apportionment of expenses should be made as between the different
locaHties. City of Racine v. Racine Gas & Lt. Co., 1911, 6 R. G. 228, 291.
Distribution system expenses.
40. Street department expense and maintenance of mains are appor-
tioned on the basis of miles of main in the two systems. City of Racine v.
Racine Gas L/. Co., 1911, 6 R. G. 228, 300.
— General expenses.
41. General expenses apportioned on the basis of output. City of
Racine v. Racine Gas Lt. Co., 1911, 6 R. G. 228, 300.
Production expenses.
42. Thie cost of production is apportioned on the basis of sales in
the two cities. City of Racine v. Racine Gas Lt. Co., 1911, 6 R. G. 228, 299.
Taxes.
43. Taxes are divided on the basis of property used. City of Racine
V. Racine Gas Lt. Co., 1911, 6 R. G. 228, 300.
Apportionment of expenses over output, capacity and consumer
expenses.
44. Apportionment made in: In re Appl. Manitowoc Gas Co., 1908,
3 R. G. 163, 172; City of Ripon v. Ripon Lt. <Sc W. Co., 1910, 5 R. G. 1, 56;
In re Appl. Green Bay Gas Sc El Co., 1910, 5 R. G. 101, 104; City of Beloit
V. Beloit W. G. & El. Co., 1911, 7 R. G. 187, 352; Meyer et al. v. Sheboygan
14 Accounting. — Cost accounting. — Determ. of unit costs
G. Lt. Co., 1912, 9 R. C. 439, 459; Superior Comml. Club et aL v. Superior
W. Lt. & P. Co., 1912, 10 R. C. 704, 775; City of Green Bay v. Green Bay
G. <Sc El. Co., 1913, 12 R. C. 324, 329: City of Milwaukee v. Milwaukee G. Lt.
Co., 1913, 12 R. C. 441, 482-484; Yanko et al. v. Portage American G. Co.,
1913, 13 R. C. 136, 142; In re Appl. Manitowoc G. Co., 1913, 13 R. G.
325, 336-337.
d. GAS UTILITIES — Continued.
Apportionment of expenses over output, capacity and consumer
expenses — Bases of apportionment.
45. Bases of apportionment explained in City of Milwaukee v. Mil
waukee G. Lt. Co., 1913, 12 R. C. 441, 479.
Commercial expenses.
46. Commercial expenses, including such items as collection salaries
and commissions, reading meters and delivering bills, collection supplies
and expenses, are all consumer expenses. Racine v. Racine Gas Lt. Co.,
1911, 6 R. C. 228, 306.
Depreciation.
47. Depreciation apportioned on the basis of the direct expenses.
City of Racine v. Racine Gas Lt. Co., 1911, 6 R. C. 228, 306.
48. Depreciation apportioned according to the investment in and
^se of the several portions of the plant. In re Appl. La Crosse G. & El.
Co., 1911, 8 R. C. 138, 195; City of Waukesha v. Waukesha G. & El. Co.,
1913, 13 R. C. 100, 118; City of Milwaukee v. Milwaukee G. Lt. Co., 1913,
12 R. C. 441, 481, 483; Jones et al. v. Berlin Public Service Co., 1914,
15 R. C. 121, 129, 130.
Distribution system expenses.
49. Method of apportionment described. City of Racine v. Racine
Gas Lt. Co., 1911, 6 R. C. 228, 306.
General expenses.
50. General expenses treated as overhead charges and distributed
on the basis of the total direct expenses. City of Racine v. Racine Gas Lt.
Co., 1911, 6 R. C. 228, 306; Jones et al. v. Berlin Public Service Co., 1914,
15 R. G. 121, 129.
Interest.
51. Interest apportioned on the basis of the direct expenses. City of
Racine v. Racine Gas L^ Co., 1911, 6 R. C. 228, 306.
52. Interest apportioned according to the investment in and use of
the several portions of the plant. In re Appl. La Crosse G. & El. Co.,
1911, 8 R. G. 138, 195; City of Milwaukee v. Milwaukee G. Lt. Co., 1913,
12 R. G, 441, 481, 483; City of Waukesha v. Waukesha G. & El. Co., 1913, 13
R. G. 100. 118.
—— Production expenses.
53. Production expenses considered as all output expenses. City of
Racine v. Racine Gas Lt. Co., 1911, 6 R. G. 228, 306.
Accounting. — Cost accounting. — Determ. of unit costs 15
— Taxes.
54. Taxes apportioned on the basis of the direct expenses. City of
Racine v. Racine Gas Lt. Co., 1911, 6 R. C. 228, 306; Jones et al. v. Berlin
Public Service Co., 1914, 15 R. G. 121, 129.
55. Apportioned according to the investment in and use of the sev-
eral portions of the plant. In re Appl. La Crosse G. & El. Co., 1911,
8 R. C. 138, 195; City of Waukesha v. Waukesha G. Sc El Co., 1913, 13 R. C.
100, 118.
Undistributed expenses.
56. Undistributed expenses treated as overhead charges and dis-
tributed on the basis of the total direct expenses. City of Racine v.
Racine Gas Lt. Co., 1911, 6 R. G. 228, 306; Jones et al. v. Berlin Public
Service Co., 1914, 15 R. G. 121, 129.
Further apportionment among the different classes of the
service.
57. In determining the proper rates it is necessary to apportion the
expenses of the utility over the several classes of consumers. City of
Racine v. Racine Gas Lt. Co., 1911, 6 R. G. 228, 244-245; City of Beloit v.
Beloit W. G. Sc El. Co., 1911, 7 R. G. 187, 256-257; Lothrop v. Village of
Sharon, 1912, 8 R. G. 479, 490.
Apportionment of value of the physical property among the
various service districts.
58. Value of physical property apportioned among the different
localities served. City of Racine v. Racine Gas Lt. Co., 1911, 6 R. G.
228, 245; City of Neenah v. Wis. Tr. Lt. Ht. & P. Co., 1911, 7 R. G. 477, 479.
Production equipment.
59. Production equipment, including land, buildings, machinery,
etc., apportioned on the basis of the sales to the two cities. City of Ra-
cine V. Racine Gas Lt. Co., 1911, 6 R. G. 228, 298.
— Storage equipment.
60. Storage equipment, including holders, apportioned largely on the
basis of present use. »City of Racine v. Racine Gas Lt. Co., 1911, 6 R. G.
228, 298.
Average cost.
61. Average cost seldom a satisfactory basis for making rates for gas
utilities. In re Appl. Manitowoc Gas Co., 1908, 3 R. G. 163, 172.
Prorating of output, capacity and consumer expenses.
62. In order to arrive at the unit costs for gas service it is necessary
to apportion the output capacity and consumer expenses to the units to
which they apply. In re Appl. Manitowoc Gas Co., 1908, 3 R. G. 163,
172; State Journal Prtg. Co. et al. v. Madison Gas cfc El. Co., 1910, 4 R. G.
501, 735; City of Racine v. Racine Gas Lt. Co., 1911, 6 R. G. 228, 306; In re
Appl. La Crosse G. & El. Co., 1911, 8 R. G. 138, 197; Lothrop v. Village of
Sharon, 1912, 8 R. G. 479, 491; Meyer et al. v. Sheboygan G. Lt. Co., 1912,
9 R. G. 439, 460, 462.
16 Accounting. — Cost accounting. — Determ. of unit costs
e. HEATING UTILITIES.
Apportionment of expenses over output? capacity, and consumer
expenses.
63. Apportionment of expenses somewhat similar to apportionment
used for gas plants. In re Appl. La Crosse G. Sc El. Co., 1911, 8 R. C.
138, 209; Jones et al. v. Berlin Public Service Co., 1914, 15 R. G. 121 141.
Depreciation.
64. Allowance for depreciation based upon the reserve required for
the renewal of each item of equipment. Jones et al. v. Berlin Public
Service Co., 1914, 15 R. C. 121, 129, 130.
General expense.
65. General expenses apportioned on the basis of the division of the
direct expenses. Jones et al. v. Berlin Public Service Co., 1914, 15 R. G.
121, 129.
Taxes.
66. Taxes apportioned on the basis of the division of the direct ex-
penses. Jones et al. v. Berlin Public Service Co., 1914, 15 R. G. 121, 129.
Undistributed expenses. ,
67. Undistributed expenses apportioned on the basis of the division
of the direct expenses. Jones et al. v. Berlin Public Service Co., 1914,
15 R. G. 121, 129.
Prorating of output, capacity and consumer expenses.
68. The consumer expenses divided by the number of patrons gives
the annual sum to be paid by each patron regardless of the number of
square feet of radiating surface. The output expenses divided by the
total radiating area gives the unit output price to be paid per square foot.
In re Appl. La Crosse G. & El. Co., 1911, 8 R. G. 138, 209.
f. INTERURBAN RAILWAYS.
Apportionment of expenses among the diflferent departments or
branches of the service — (interurban and urban) — Depre-
ciation.
69. Depreciation apportioned on the basis of the value of the prop-
erty in each branch of the service. Lamb v. Eastern Wis. R. <Sc Lt. Co.,
1911, 6 R. G. 473, 493.
General expenses.
70. General expenses apportioned on the basis of overhead expenses.
Lamb v. Eastern Wis. R. & Lt. Co., 1911, 6 R. G. 473, 492.
Power expenses.
71. Power expenses apportioned on the basis of the current consumed
by each branch of the service. Lamb v. Eastern Wis. R. & Lt. Co., 1911,
6 R. G. 473, 489.
Accounting. — Cost accounting. — Determ. of unit costs 17
Taxes.
72. Taxes apportioned on the basis of the value of the property in
each branch of the service. Lamb v. Eastern Wis. R. & Lt. Co., 1911,
6 R. C. 473, 493.
Undistributed expenses.
73. Undistributed expenses apportioned on the basis of overhead
expenses. Lamb v. Eastern Wis. R. & Lt. Co., 1911, 6 R. C. 473, 492.
Way and structures expense.
74. The interurban system's share of the way and structures expenses
was based on the amount of its car mileage within the city. Lamb v.
Eastern Wis. R. & Lt. Co., 1911, 6 R. C. 473, 488.
(Urban, suburban and interurban).
75. Operating expenses for the entire traction system apportioned
among the urban, suburban and interurban departments. Deakin et at.
V. T. M. E. R. & L. Co., 1912, 10 R. G. 306, 311.
Interurban department expenses.
76. Expenses for the interurban department apportioned over the
several Unes involved. Deakin et al. v. T. M. E. R. Sc L. Co., 1912, 10 R. C.
306, 312.
Terminal and movement expenses.
77. The total cost of service for the interurban lines was apportioned
between movement and terminal expenses. Deakin et al. v. T, M. E. R. Sc
L. Co., 1912, 10 R. C. 306, 313.
Apportionment of expenses of interstate system between portion
of line within the state and the remainder of the system —
Bases of apportionment.
78. Such expenses as maintenance of cars are most accurately divided
upon the basis of car mileage, while others, such as wages of passenger car
employes, depend upon the car-hours. A third basis, upon which such
items as power expenses are to be divided, is the kilowatt-hours of current
consumed. Schicker v. Rockford & I. Ry. Co., 1911, 6 R. C. 695, 699.
Depreciation.
79. Depreciation apportioned on the basis of the value of the prop-
erty in each state. Schicker v. Rockford & I. Ry. Co., 1911, 6 R. C. 695,
709-710.
Equipment expenses.
80. In the present case the equipment expenses were apportioned as
follows: Maintenance of passenger and combination cars on the basis of
passenger, motor and trail car mileage; maintenance of freight and ex-
press cars on the basis of freight and express car mileage; maintenance of
utility equipment of cars on the overhead basis of expenses for mainte-
nance of way and electric line; shop and miscellaneous equipment expenses
on the overhead basis of expenses for equipment, excluding superinten-
dence; maintenance of substation equipment on the basis of kilowatt-
hours output; and superintendence of equipment on the overhead basis
18 Accounting. — Cost accounting. — Determ. of unit costs
of all other equipment expenses. Schicker v. Rockford Sc I. Ry. Co., 1911,
6 R. C. 695, 706, 707.
f. INTERURBAN RAILWAY. — Continued.
Apportionment of expenses of interstate system between portion
of line within the state and the remainder of the system-
General expenses.
81. General expenses apportioned on the overhead basis of all other
operating expenses. Schicker v. Rockford & I. Ry. Co., 1911, 6 R. C.
695, 709.
Taxes.
82. In apportioning taxes the amounts were charged against the
years in which they accrued. In order to apply the amount paid in the
calendar yeai* to the fiscal year of the company, one-half of the tax for each
year, plus one-half of the amount for the next year was taken as correct.
Schicker v. Rockford & I. Ry. Co., 1911, 6 R. C. 695, 709.
Traffic expenses.
83. Probably the most satisfactory basis of apportionment of traffic
expenses would be according to the number of passengers carried in the
two states, but in the absence of data upon this subject, the passenger
and special car revenue of the two states has been used as a basis in the
present case. Schicker v. Rockford Sc I. Ry. Co., 1911, 6 R. C. 695, 708-709.
Transportation expenses.
84. Transportation expenses apportioned between the two states on
various bases. Schicker v. Rockford & I. Ry. Co., 1911, 6 R. G. 695,
707-708.
Undistributed expenses.
85. Undistributed expenses apportioned on the overhead basis of all
other operating expenses. Schicker v. Rockford & I. Ry. Co., 1911, 6 R. G.
695, 709.
Way and structures expenses.
86. Way and structures expenses divided between weather and
traffic expenses. Expenses due to weather divided on the basis of track
mileage, and those due to traffic on the basis of car mileage. Schicker v.
Rockford <Sc I. Ry. Co., 1911, 6 R. G. 695, 705.
Apportionment of the value of the physical property among the
diflferent departments or branches of the service.
87. Apportionment made in Lamb v. Eastern Wis. R. Sc Lt. Co., 1911,
6 R. G. 473, 478; Deakin et al. v. T. M. E. R. Sc L. Co., 1912, 10 R. G.
306, 310.
Prorating of expenses over units of service.
88. Terminal expenses were prorated according to the number of
revenue passengers while the movement expenses were distributed over
revenue passenger miles. Deakin et al. v. T. M. E. R. Sc L. Co., 1912,
10 R. G. 306, 313.
Accounting. — Cost accounting. — Determ. of unit costs 19
, g. JOINT UTILITIES.
Apportionment of expenses among the different plants — In
general.
89. To ascertain the cost per unit of production for each utility
presents no simple problem. Each utility must stand on its own feet;
gas consumers cannot be expected to carry any of the burdens of the water
consumers; the water consumers, again, cannot be charged with part of
the costs of the electric service. A large portion of the investment of the
company, and a large part of the operating expenses of the plants, are
directly chargeable to a particular utility and a particular class of service.
The remaining investment and expenses are common to two or three
utilities, and such equipment and costs must be apportioned between the
utilities on fair and reasonable bases. City of Beloit v. Beloit W. G. & El.
Co., 1911, 7 R. C. 187, 256.
(Electric and gas)
90. Expenses apportioned between electric and gas plants. State
Journal Prig. Co. v. Madison Gas & EL Co., 1910, 4 R. C. 501, 592.
(Electric, gas and heating)
91. Expenses apportioned among electric, gas and heating plants.
In re Appl. La Crosse G. <Sc El. Co., 1911, 8 R. C. 138, 202. Jones et at. v.
Berlin Public Service Co., 1914, 15 R. G. 121, 127.
(Electric, gas and electric railway)
92. Expenses apportioned among electric, gas and electric railway
plants. In re Men. & Mar. Lt. & Tr. Co., 1909, 3 R. G. 778, 814; Lamb
V. Eastern Wis. Ry. Sc Lt. Co., 1911, 6 R. G. 473, 483.
(Electric, gas and water)
93. Expenses apportioned among electric, gas and water plants.
City of Ripon v. Ripon Lt. <Sc W. Co., 1910, 5 R. G. 1, 23; Cunningham et al.
V. Chippewa Falls W. Wks. & Ltg. Co., 1910, 5 R. G. 302, 327; City of
Beloit V. Beloit W. G. & El. Co., 1911, 7 R. G. 187, 256.
(Electric, gas and heating)
94. Expenses apportioned among electric, gas and heating plants.
City of Waukesha v. Waukesha G. & El. Co., 1913, 13 R. G. 100.
(Electric, heating and electric railway)
95. Expenses apportioned among electric, gas and electric railway
plants. City of Milwaukee v. T. M, E. R. & L. Co., 1912, 10 R. G. 1, 165.
(Electric and electric railway)
96. Expenses apportioned between electric and electric railway plants.
In re Service of T. M. E. R. Sc L. Co. in Milwaukee, 1913, 13 R. G. 178, 227.
(Electric and water)
97. Expenses apportioned between electric and water plants. In re
Invest. Evansville Mun. El. Lt. Sc W. Plant, 1912, 11 R. G. 197, 203; In re
Appl. Columbus W. Sc Lt. Comm., 1913, 11 R. G. 449, 457;llnlre Appl.
20 Accounting. — Cost accounting. — Determ. of unit costs
Ft, Atkinson W. & Lt. Comm., 1913, 12 R. C. 260, 290-292; Kittleson et at.
V. Elroy Mun. W. cfc Lt. Plant, 1914, 14 R. C. 485, 489; In re Invest. Waterloo
Mun. W. & EL Plant, 1914, 15 R. C. 534, 540, 541.
g. JOINT UTILITIES — Continued.
Apportionment of expenses among different plants — Deprecia-
tion — (Electric, gas and >vater)
98. Depreciation actually computed for each plant. City of Ripon v.
Ripon Lt. 6c W. Co., 1910, 5 R. C. 1, 26.
(Electric and water)
99. Depreciation apportioned on the basis of the value of the prop-
erty and the nature of the equipment for each plant. In re Invest. Evans-
ville Mun. El. Lt. & W. Plant, 1912, 11 R. C. 197, 203.
100. Depreciation actually computed for each plant. In re Appl.
Columbus W. & Lt. Comm., 1913, 11 R. C. 449, 459.
General expenses — (Electric and gas)
101. The fairest basis for the apportionment of the general expenses
between two plants so situated as those involved in the case under con-
sideration would seem to be their respective demand upon the manage-
ment as measured by the direct expenses of each plant. State Journal
Prtg. Co. et at. v. Madison Gas & El. Co., 1910, 4 R. C. 501, 592.
(Electric, gas and heating)
102. Practice indicates that general expenses should be apportioned
among the plants on the basis of the direct expense. City of Waukesha v.
Waukesha G. & El. Co., 1913, 13 R. C. 100, 115.
(Electric, gas and electric railway)
103. General expenses distributed in proportion to the total expenses.
In re Men. & Mar. Lt. cS: Tr. Co., 1909, 3 R. C. 778, 814.
104f General expenses not directly chargeable to any of the three
plants apportioned on the basis of overhead expenses. Lamb v. Eastern
Wis. Ry. & Lt. Co., 1911, 6 R. C. 473, 483.
(Electric, gas and water)
105. General expenses not directly chargeable to any of the three
plants apportioned on the basis of the direct expenses. City of Ripon v.
Ripon Lt. Sc W. Co., 1910, 5 R. C. 1, 26; Cunningham et at. v. Chippewa
Falls W. Wks. <k Ltg. Co., 1910, 5 R. C. 302, 327.
(Electric, heating and electric railway)
106. General expenses not directly chargeable to any of the three
plants apportioned on the basis of the direct expenses. City of Milwaukee
V. T. M. E. R. <Sc L. Co., 1912, 10 R. G. 1, 165.
(Electric and water)
107. General expenses apportioned on the basis of the direct expanses.
In re Appl. Columbus W. & Lt. Comm., 1913, 11 R. G. 449, 459; In re
Appl. Ft. Atkinson W. & Lt. Comm., 1913, 12 R. C. 260, 290, 292.
Accounting. — Cost accounting. — Determ. of unit costs 21
Interest — (Electric and water)
108. Interest apportioned on the basis of the value of the property
for each plant. In re Invest. Evansville Mun. El. Lt. <Sc W. Plant, 1912,
11 R. C. 197, 203; In re Appl. Columbus W. & Li! Comm., 1913, 11 R. G.
449, 459.
Production expenses — (Electric, gas and heating)
109. Because the heating business must receive all the heat of the
steam which the engines have not converted into energy, hardly seems to
be a valid reason for charging the heating business with that proportion
of the cost of steam generated; for even in the most efTicient steam oper-
ated electric plants, only a relatively small amount of the energy of the
steam is converted into useful work, the remainder being lost in various
ways. In re Appl. La Crosse G. & EL Co., 1911, 8 R. G. 138, 202.
— ^- • — (Electric and electric railway)
110. Power expenses apportioned on the basis of the kilowatt -hours
consumed by each department. Lamb v. Eastern Wis. Ry. & Lt. Co.^
1911, 6R. G. 473, 482.
Taxes — (Electric and gas)
111. Taxes apportioned on the basis of the value of the property for
each plant. State Journal Prig. Co.et al. v. Madison Gas^Sc El. Co., 1910,
4 R. G. 501, 594.
(Electric, gas and heating)
112. Taxes apportioned to the three utilities on the basis of the
valuation made by the Gommission. City of Waukesha v. Waukesha G. Sc
EL Co., 1913, 13 R. G. 100, 115.
. (Electric, gas and electric railway)
113. Taxes apportioned on the basis of the value of the property for
each plant. In re Men. Sc Mar. Lt. Sc Tr. Co., 1909, 3 R. G. 778, 816;
Lamb v. Eastern Wis. Rq. Sc Lt. Co., 1911, 6 R. G. 473, 484.
(Electric, gas and water)
114, Taxes apportioned on the basis of the value of the property for
each plant. Cunningham et al. v. Chippewa Falls W. Wks. Sc Ltg. Co.,,
1910, 5 R. G. 302, 328.
(Electric and electric railw^ay)
115. Seventy per cent of the taxes apportioned to the railway plant.
In re Service of T. M. E. R. Sc L. Co., 1913, 13 R. G. 178, 227.
(Electric and water)
116. Taxes apportioned on the basis of the value of the property for
each plant. In re Invest. Evansville Mun. El. Lt. Sc W. Plant, 1912,
11 R. G. 197, 203; In re Appl. Columbus W. Sc Lt. Comm., 1913, 11 R. G.
449, 459.
22 Accounting. — Cost accounting. — Determ. of unit costs
g. JOINT UTILITIES — Continued.
Apportionment of expenses among different plants — Undistributed
expenses — (Electric, gas and electric railway)
117. Undistributed expenses not directly chargeable to any of the
plants apportioned on the basis of the overhead expenses. Lamb v.
Eastern Wis. Ry. <Sc Lt. Co., 1911, 6 R. G. 473, 483.
(Electric and water)
118. Undistributed expenses apportioned on the basis of the direct
expenses. In re Appl. Columbus W. & Lt. Comm., 1913, 11 R. C. 449,
459; In re Appl. Ft. Atkinson W. & Lt. Comm., 1913, 12 R. C. 260, 290-292.
Apportionment of value of the physical property among the
different plants — (Electric and gas)
119. Apportionment made in State Journal Prtg. Co. v. Madison Gas
& El. Co., 1910, 4 R. C. 501, 556; In re Invest. Madison Gas Sc El. Co.,
1911, 7 R. G. 152, 156.
(Electric, gas and heating)
120. Jones et al. v. Berlin Public Service Co., 1914, 15 R. G. 121, 125.
(Electric, gas and electric railway)
121. In re Men. & Mar. Lt. & Tr. Co., 1909, 3 R. G. 778, 816; City
ofNeenah v. Wis. Tr. Lt. Ht. Sc P. Co., 1911, 7 R. G. 477, 480.
(Electric, gas and water)
122. City ofRipon v. Ripon Lt. <Sc W. Co., 1910, 5 R. G. 1, 8; Cunning-
ham et al. V. Chippewa Falls W. Wks. Sc Ltg. Co., 1910, 5 R. G. 302, 339;
City ofBeloit v. Beloit W. Gas Sc El. Co., 1911, 7 R. G. 187, 201.
— \ — (Electric, heating and electric railway)
123. City of Milwaukee v. T. M. E. R. Sc L. Co., 1912, 10 R. G. 1,
111, 113.
(Electric and electric railway)
124.. Fullmer v. Wausau St. R. R. Co., 1910, 5 R. G. 114, 122; Lamb v.
Eastern Wis. Ry. & Lt. Co., 1911, 6 R. G. 473, 477.
(Electric, telephone and pumping)
125. In re Appl. J. L. Ball, 1907, 2 R. G. 105, 109.
(Electric and water)
126. In re Appl. Darlington El. Lt. Sc W. P. Co., 1910, 5 R. G. 397,
405; In re Appl. Jefferson Mun. El. Lt. Sc W. Plant, 1910, 5 R. G. 555, 556
In re Invest. Evansville Mun. El. Lt. Sc W. Plant, 1912, 11 R. G. 197, 201
In re Appl. Fennimore Mun. W. Sc Lt. Plant, 1913, 12 R. G. 194, 200-201
In re Appl. Ft. Atkinson W. Sc Lt. Comm., 1913, 12 R. G. 260, 275; Kittle-
son et al. v. Elroy Mun. W. Sc Lt. Plant, 1914, 14 R. G. 485, 489.
Accounting. — Cost accounting. — Determ. of unit costs 23
h. RAILROADS.
Apportionment of expenses among the different departments or
branches of the service.
127. Apportionment made in: In re Rates on Grain, 1906, 1 R. C.
124, 129; Chippewa Sugar Co. et al. v. C. M. Sc St. P. R. Co. et al., 1906.
1 R. C. 258, 280; Buell v. C. M. Sc St. P. R. Co., 1907, 1 R. G. 324, 341-485;
In re Passenger Rates M. St. P. & S. S. M. R. Co., 1907, 1 R. G. 540, 568;
Noble et al. v. C. St. P. M. <k 0. R. Co., 1907, 1 R. G. 767, 775; /n re Rates
on Milk and Cream, 1908, 2 R. G. 450, 470; Webster Mfg. Co. v. C. St. P.
M. & 0. R. Co., 1910, 5 R. G. 95, 96; Ringle et al. v. C. M. & St. P. R. Co.
et al., 1911, 7 R. G. 170, 182; Pulp & Paper Mfrs. Traffic Assn. v. C. &
N. W. R. Co. et al., 1913, 11 R. G. 365, 390.
Interest.
128. Interest apportioned between freight and passenger traffic on
the basis of the gross earnings. Buell v. C. M. & St. P. R. Co., 1907, 1 R. G.
324, 483, 484.
— Taxes.
129. Taxes apportioned between freight and passenger traffic on
the basis of the gross earnings. Buell v. C. M. Sc St. P. R. Co., 1907,
1 R. G. 324, 477.
Further apportionment between terminal and movement
, expenses.
130. Apportionment made in: In re Rates on Grain, 1906, 1 R. G.
124, 129; So. Wis. Cheesemen's Protective Ass. v. Ry. Cos., 1906, 1 R. G.
143, 153; Chippewa Sugar Co. et al. v. C. M. Sc St. P. R. Co. et al., 1906, 1
R. G. 258, 280; Noble et al. v. C. St. P. M. Sc 0. R. Co., 1907, 1 R. G. 767,
775; In re Rates on Live Stock, 1907, 1 R. G. 778, 807; Ringle et al. v. C.
M. Sc St. P. R. Co. et al., 1911, 7 R. G. 170, 182; In re Marathon County
R. Co., 1911, 7 R. G. 392, 397; Pulp Sc Paper Mfrs. Traffic Assn. v. C. Sc
N. W. R. Co. et al., 1913, 11 R. G. 365, 390.
Movement expenses — Further apportionment between local
and through traffic.
131. Apportionment made in Chippewa Sugar Co. et al. v. C. M. Sc
St. P. R. Co. et al., 1906, 1 R. G. 258, 281 ; Buell v. C. M. Sc St. P. R. Co.,
1907, 1 R. G. 324, 487-499.
Apportionment of expenses betw^een intrastate and interstate
traffic.
132. The operating expenses for the hne in Wisconsin were appor-
tioned to this state in the proportion that the revenue train mileage
which was made within the state bore to the total train mileage. Buell v.
C. M. Sc St. P. R. Co., 1907, 1 R. G. 324, 375.
133. The company's report apportioned 21 per cent of the expenses
to Wisconsin. In re Passenger Rates M. St. P. Sc S. S. M. R. Co., 1907,
1 R. G. 540, 567.
24 Accounting, — Cost accounting. — Determ. of unit costs
h. RAILROADS. — Continued.
Apportionment of expenses between intrastate and interstate
traflFic — Dividends on stock.
134. Dividends on stock apportioned to Wisconsin in the proportion
which the miles of road located in this state bore to the total length of
the road for the entire system. Buell v. C. M. & St. P. R. Co., 1907,
1 R. G. 324, 375.
Interest on bonds.
135. The interest on the bonds apportioned to Wisconsin in the pro-
portion which the miles of road located in this state bore to the total
length of the road for the entire system. Buell v. C. M. Sc St. P. R. Co.,
1907, 1 R. C. 324, 375.
Apportionment of, the value of the physical property among the
different departments or branches of the service.
136. Value of the physical property apportioned between freight
and passenger traffic. Buell v. C. M. & St. P. R. Co., 1907, 1 R. G.
324, 475.
Prorating of expenses over units of service performed.
137. The total expenses for each department, in turn, should be so
distributed over the units of service performed by the same, that each
unit is made to bear its just proportion of this total, which proportion is
best measured by the cost of the service to the carrier, when this cost is
modified by what the traffic can fairly bear, or by the value and character
of the articles transported, and by commercial and competitive conditions.
Webster Mfg. Co. t. C. St. P. M. & 0. R. Co., 1910, 5 R. G. 95, 96; Paxton
Sc Lightbody Co. v. M. R. Co. et al., 1910, 5 R. G. 531, 542; Pulp & Paper
Mfrs. Traffic Assn. v. C. & N. W. R. Co., 1913, 11 R. G., 365, 390.
i. STREET RAILWAYS.
Apportionment of expenses among allied companies — Mainte-
nance of way
138. Maintenance of way expenses apportioned between *T. M.
E. R. & L. Go. and the M. L. H. & T. Go. In re Service of T. M. E. R.
Sz L. Co. in Milwaukee, 1913, 13 R. G. 178, 216-219.
Apportionment of expenses among the different departments or
branches of the service — (Urban, suburban and interurban).
139. Apportionment of the operating expenses for the entire traction
system made as among urban, suburban and interurban departments.
City of Milwaukee v. T. M. E. R. & L. Co., 1912, 10 R. G. 1, 160, 282-283;
Cusick et al. v. T. M. E. R. & L. Co., 1912, 10 R. G. 314, 331; Koenig et al.
V. T. M. E. R. <Sc L. Co., 1912, 10 R. G. 337, 349; Village of East Milwau-
kee V. T. M. E. R. & L. Co., 1912, 10 R. G. 358, 366; In re Modification
Milwaukee Urban Fare Decision, 1915, 15 R. G. 724, 733.
Conducting transportation.
140. Gertain of the costs of conducting .transportation vary propor-
tionately to the car-hour, certain other costs to the car-miles, and a third
class of costs to the number of passengers carried. City of Milwaukee v.
T. M. E. R. & L. Co., 1912, 10 R. G. 1, 209-215.
Accounting. — Cost accounting. — Determ. of unit costs 25
Joint track expenses.
141. Apportionment of joint track expenses varying with the track-
mile were based upon the relative headway of the various lines using the
track. City of Milwaukee v. T. M. E. R. & L. Co., 1912, 10 R. C. 1, 274.
Maintenance of rolling stock expenses.
142. Apportionment of expenses for maintenance of rolling stock
made on the car-mile basis. City of Milwaukee v. T. M. E. R. & L. Co.,
1912, 10 R. C. 1, 205-209.
Maintenance of way and structures.
143. The various items apportioned according to their nature, on a
car-mile, track-mile, overhead, direct charge or arbitrary percentage-
basis. City of Milwaukee v. T. M. E. R. Sc L. Co., 1912, 10 R. C. 1, 204.
Overhead expenses.
' 144. Reserve charges prorated on a gross earnings basis. General
and executive expenses apportioned on the basis of the total direct ex-
penses. City of Milwaukee v. T. M. E. R. & L. Co., 1912, 10 R. C. 1, 167.
Power expenses. ^
145. Power plant expenses for the separate power stations appor-
tioned on the basis of weighted car miles tributary to each station. City
of Milwaukee v. T. M. E. R. & L. Co., 1912, 10 R. C. 1, 186-188.
Apportionment of expenses among the localities served.
146. Expenses apportioned between Superior and Duluth. Superior
Comml. Club et al. v. Duluth St. Ry. Co., 1912, 11 R. C. 1, 24.
Apportionment of the value of the physical property among the
different departments or branches of the service (urban,
suburban and interurban)
147. Apportionment made in: City of Milwaukee v. T. M. E. R. cfc
L. Co., 1912, lOR.C. 1,112, 115; Cusicket al.v. T.M.E.R. <Sc L.Co.et al,
1912, 10 R. C. 314, 328; Koenig et al. v. T. M. E. R. cfc L. Co. et al., 1912,
10 R. C. 337, 346; Village of East Milwaukee v. T. M. E. R. & L. Co., 1912,
10 R. C. 358, 364.
Further apportionment among the different lines.
148. In segregating the tangible values applicable to the different
lines, the appraisal of the engineer of the Commission has been directly
localized wherever possible. In instances, however, where track and
other equipment has been used jointly the separation of values has neces-
sarily been made upon an arbitrary unit basis. City of Milwaukee v.
T. M. E. R. & L. Co., 1912, 10 R. C. 1, 275, Z1^211.
Joint track.
149. For the purpose of distributing joint track values in the appor-
tionment of the cost of reproduction new it has been deemed advisable
to base the apportionment of joint track upon the relative headway of the
various lines using such track. City of Milwaukee v. T. M. E. R. Sc L.
Co., 1912, 10 R. C. 1,274.
26 Accounting. — Cost accounting. — Deter m. of unit costs
i. STREET RAILWAYS. — Continued.
Prorating of expenses over units of service.
150. The total cost of service prorated over the various units of
service according to the number of passengers carried, car-miles, car-
hours and track miles for the various systems, services and companies.
City oj Milwaukee v. T. M. E. i?. & L. Co., 1912, 10 R. C. 1, 274; Cusick
et al. V. T. M. E. R. Sc L. Co. et al.,' 1912, 10 R. C. 314, 334; Koenig et al. v.
T. M. E. R. <Sc L. Co. et al., 1912, 10 R. C. 337, 350-351; Village of East
Milwaukee v. T. M. E. R. & L. Co., 1912, 10 R. C. 358, 365, 367; Superior
Comml. Club et al. v. Duluth St. Ry. Co., 1912, 11 R. C. 1, 24-25, 28.
j. TELEPHONE UTILITIES.
Apportionment of expenses between toll and exchange expenses.
151. In cases where separation is possible, toll expenses should be
treated without reference to the various exchanges. In re Appl. Inter-
urban Tel. Co., 1911, 6 R. C. 647, 650.
152. Expenses apportioned among local, rural and toll departments,
on an arbitrary basis. In re Appl. Portage Tel. Co., 1908, 2 R. G. 692, 695.
Apportionment of exchange expenses among the different
exchanges.
153. Apportionment made in: In re Appl. Badger State Tel. & Teleg.
Co., 1914, 14 R. C. 407, 413; In re Appl. Marion Sc Northern Tel. Co.,
1914, 15 R.C. 552, 557,558.
Miscellaneous advertising and canvassing expenses.
154. Miscellaneous advertising and canvassing expenses apportioned
among exchanges- on the basis of earnings. Columbus Advancement Assn.
V. Wis. Tel. Co., 1910, 4 R. C. 414, 419.
Miscellaneous maintenance and current repair ex-
penses.
155. Miscellaneous maintenance and current repair expenses appor-
tioned on the basis of the direct expenses for salaries and wages under this
head. Columbus Advancement Assn. v. Wis. Tel. Co., 1910, 4 R. C. 414,
419.
Apportionment of exchange expenses between fixed and
variable expenses.
156. In the case of telephone companies, as in other utilities, the ex-
penses may be divided into two groups, those varying with the amount
of business done, or the variable expenses, and those which remain prac-
tically the same whatever the amount of business done, or the fixed ex-
penses. In re Appl. Pewaukee- Sussex Tel. Co., 1911, 7 R. C. 465, 471.
Further apportionment among the different branches or
departments of service.
157. Such expenses as vary with the amount of business done by the
plant are properly chargeable against subscribers in approximate propor-
tion to the use of the plant made by each. The fixed expenses should be
borne equally by all subscribers. In re Appl. Pewaukee-Sussex Tel. Co.,
1911, 7 R. C. 465, 471.
Accounting. — Cost accounting. — Dehrm. of unit costs 27
158. Apportionment made in: In re Appl. Mineral Point Tel. Co.,
1912, 9 R. C. 285, 300; Arena & Ridg'y Tel. Co. v. Troy & Honey Creek
Tel. Co. et al., 1914, 13 R. C. 763, 769-770.
— : — Central office expenses.
159. Central office expenses apportioned among the city, rural, and
the rural connecting lines on, the basis of the percentages obtained from
the traffic analysis. In re Appl. Muscoda Mat. Tel. Co., 1913, 11 R. C.
666.681.
Depreciation.
160. Depreciation apportioned on the basis of the value of the prop-
erty. In re Appl. Muscoda Mut. Tel. Co., 1913, 11 R. C. 666,.681.
Expenses proportional to central office invest-
ment.
161. A portion of the expenses proportional to central office invest-
ment apportioned to rural lines. In re Appl. Mineral Point Tel. Co.,
1912, 9 R. C. 285, 300.
Interest.
162. Interest apportioned on the basis of the value of the property.
In re Appl. Muscoda Mut. Tel. Co., 1913, 11 R. C. 666, 681.
Rental for through lines.
163. The annual rental for through lines apportioned according to
use among the city, the rural, and the rural connecting lines. In re Appl.
Muscoda Mut. Tel. Co., 1913, 11 R. G. 666, 681.
Salaries of operators.
164. Operators' salaries apportioned between exchange and toll
service. In re Appl. Mineral Point Tel. Co., 1912, 9 R. C. 285, 299.
Taxes.
165. Taxes apportioned on the basis of the value of the property.
In re Appl. Muscoda Mut. Tel. Co., 1913, 11 R. G. 666, 681.
: Wire plant expenses.
166. Wire plant expenses apportioned among local, rural, and rural
connecting lines according to the property used in each service. In re
Appl. Muscoda Mut. Tel. Co., 1913, 11 R. C. 666, 681.
Apportionment of expenses to switching service — Further appor-
tionment among the different foreign lines and foreign
subscribers.
167. Apportionment on the basis of a traffic study of total expenses
of exchanges performing switching service for foreign lines to show cost
of this service; further apportionment to show expenses to (1) foreign
lines not connecting with second exchange; (2) foreign lines connecting
with second exchange; (3) subscribers on foreign lines connected with
second exchange; and (4) second exchange. In re Appl. Farmers' Tel.
Co. ofBeetown, 1914, 13 R. C. 540, 558-570.
28 Accounting. — Cost accounting. — Determ. of unit costs
168. Apportionment of additional expense, incident to betterment
of service, to cost of switching service; further apportionment to show ex-
pense to (1) subscribers on foreign lines not connected with second ex-
change; (2) expense to subscribers on foreign lines connecting with sec-
ond exchange; and (3) expense to second exchange. In re Appl. Farmers'
Tel. Co. ofBeetowh, 1914, 13 R. C. 540, 581-3c2.
j. TELEPHONE UTILITIES — Continued.
Apportionment of expenses to switching service — Further appor-
tionment amorg the different foreign lines and foreign
subscribers — Bases of apportionment.
169. Bases of apportionment outlined. In re Appl. Farmers' Tel.
Co. ofBeetown, 1914, 13 R. C. 540, 570.
Apportionment of the value of the physical property — Apportion-
ment among the different departments or branches of the
service.
170. Apportionment made in: In re Appl. Portage Tel. Co., 1908,
2 R. G. 692, 694; Tighe et al. v. Clinton Tel. Co., 1908, 3 R. G. 117, 125;
In re Appl. Oregon Tel. Co., 1909, 3 R. G. 535, 547; Payne et al. v. Wis.
Tel. Co., 1909, 4 R. G. 1, 9; In re Appl. Interurban Tel. Co., 1911, 6 R. G.
647, 650; In re Appl. Badger State Tel. & Teleg. Co., 1914, 14 R. G. 407,
412; In re Appl. Marion Sz Northern Tel. Co., 1914, 15 R. G. 552, 560.
Apportionemt among the different exchanges.
171. Apportionment made in: In re Appl. Farmers' Tel. Co. of
Beetown, 1914, 13 R. G. 540, 553-554; In re Appl. Badger State Tel. Sz
Teleg. Co., 1914, 14 R. G. 407, 413.
Apportionment to show the value of the property used by
foreign telephone utilities.
172. Apportionment made in: In re Appl. Farmers' Tel. Co. of Bee-
town, 1914, 13 R. G. 540, 552-553; Curtiss & Withee Tel. Co. v. Owen Tel.
Co., 1914, 14 R. G. 419, 423-424; In re Appl Trego Tel. Co., 1914, 14 R. G.
499, 502-503.
Apportionment of the value of toll line between connecting
companies.
173. The value of the toll line apportioned between the Kingston
Tel. Go. and the H. A. Price Tel. Go. In re Tel. Toll Rates Markesan to
Kingston, 1914, 15 R. G. 288, 292.
k. WATER UTILITIES.
Apportionment of expenses over output, capacity and consumer
expenses.
174. Before the proper distribution of the total charges for water
can be determined, the operating expenses must be separated into fixed
and variable, or capacity and output expenses. City of Ashland v. Ash-
land Water Co., 1909, 4 R. G. 273, 289.
175. Apportionment made in: In re Appl. Madison City W. Wks.,
1909, 3 R. G. 299, 305-306; Dick et al. v. Madison Water Comm., 1910,
5 I^. G. 731, 754 et seq.; Kirwin et al. v. City of Darlington, 1910, 6 R. G.
26, 36; City of Janesville v. Janesville W. Co., 1911, 7 R. G. 628, 651;.
Accounting. — Cost accounting. — Determ. of unit costs 29
Lothrop V. Village of Sharon, 1912, 8 R. C. 479, 486; West et al. v. City of
Eau Claire, 1912, 9 R. C. 134, 147; Superior Comml. Club et al. v. Supe-
rior W. Lt. & P. Co., 1912, 10 R. C. 704, 763; Rollins et al. v. Village of
Montfort, 1913, 11 R. C. 278, 284; In re Appl. Columbus W. & Lt. Comm.,
1913, 11 R. C. 449, 466; In re Appl. Village of Elkhart Lake, 1913, 11 R. C.
690, 692; Town of Vaughn v. Hurley W. Co., 1914, 14 R. C. 291, 300-303;
Dennet et al. v. City of Sheboygan, 1914, 14 R. C. 634, 642; Hughes et al. v.
Watertown W. Wks., 1914, 14 R. C. 669, 674-689.
Further apportionment among the different classes of the
service.
176. In order that each class of consumers may bear its share of the
cost of service it is necessary to apportion the expenses of operation be-
tween general service and fire and other municipal service. In re Appl.
Madison City \V. Wks., 1909, 3 R. C. 299, 319. Apportionment made in:
City of Ashland v. Ashland Water Co., 1909, 4 R. C. 273, 286, 292, 295;
City of Ripon v. Ripon Lt. & W. Co., 1910, 5 R. C. 1, 62; In re Appl.
Jefferson Mun. El. Lt. <Sc W. Plant, 1910, 5 R. C. 555, 578; Dick et al. u.
Madison Water Comm., 1910, 5 R. C, 731, 759; Kirwin et al. v. City of
Darlington, 1910, 6 R. C. 26, 36; City of Beloit v. Beloit W. G. & El. Co.,
1911, 7 R. C. 187, 256-257; In re Appl. Oconto City W. Supply Co., 1911,
7 R. C. 497, 535 et sen.; City of Janesville v. Janesville W. Co., 1911, 7 R. C.
628, 651; Fitzgerald et al. v. City of Tomahawk, 1911, 8 R. C. 40, 47; City of
Marinette v. City Water Co. of Marinette, 1911, 8 R. C. 334, 365; West et al.
V. City of Eau Claire, 1912, 9 R. C. 134, 147-148; Civic League et al. u.
Beaver Dam W. Co., 1912, 10 R. C. 661, 680-681; Superior Comml. Club
et al. V. Superior W. Lt. & P. Co., 1912, 10 R. C. 704, 764; In re Appl. City
of Neenah, 1912, 11 R. C. 119, 122-123; In re Invest. Evansville Mun. El.
Lt. Sc W. Plant, 1912, 11 R. G. 197, 208; City of Green Bay v. Green Bay
W. Co., 1913, 11 R. C. 236, 259; Rollins el al. v. Village of Montfort, 1913,
11 R. G. 278, 284; In re Appl. Columbus W. & Lt. Comm., 1913, 11 R. G
449, 467; In re Appl. City of Delavan, 1913, 12 R. G. 148, 151; In re Appl
Fennimore Mun. W. & Lt. Plant, 1913, 12 R. G. 194, 201-203; In re Appl
Ff. Atkinson W. <Sc Lt. Comm., 1913, 12 R. G. 260, 311-312; In re Appl
City of Sparta, 1913, 12 R. G. 532, 542; In re Invest. Green Bay W. Co.,
1913, 12 R. G. 734, 738; In re Invest. Ashland Water Co., 1914, 14 R. G
1, 55; Town of Vaughn v. Hurley W. Co., 1914, 14 R. G. 291, 300-303
Kittleson et al. v. Elroy Mun. W. <Sc Lt. Plant, 1914, 14 R. G. 485, 492
Dennett et al. v. City of Sheboygan, 1914, 14 R. G. 634, 643; Hughes et al. v
Watertown W. Wks., 1914, 14 R. G. 669, 674-689; In re Invest. Waterloo
Mun. W. Sc El. Plant, 1914, 15 R. G. 534, 548.
Depreciation.
177. Depreciation apportioned between fire and general service on
the basis of the value of the property devoted to each service. In re Appl.
Oconto City W. Supply Co., 1911, 7 R. G. 497, 535; City of Janesville v.
Janesville W. Co., 1911, 7 R. G. 628, 651; Fitzgerald et al v. City of Toma-
hawk, 1911, 8 R. G. 40, 47; Civic League et al. v. Beaver Dam W. Co., 1912,
10 R. G. 661, 681; Superior Comml. Club et al. v. Superior W. Lt. <Sc P. Co.,
1912, 10 R. G. 706, 766; In re Appl. City of Neenah, 1912, 11 R. C. 119,
30 Accounting. — Cost accounting. — Determ. of unit costs
123; City of Green Bay v. Green Bay W. Co., 1913, 11 R. C. 236, 254; Rol-
lins et ai. V. Village of Montfort, 1913, 11 R. C. ^78, 285; In re Appl. Colum-
bus W. & Lt. Comm., 1913, 11 R. C. 449, 467; In re Appl. City oj Delavan,
1913, 12 R. C. 148, 151; In re Appl. Fennimore Mun. W. Sc Lt. Plant, 1913,
12 R. G. 194,203; In re Appl. Ft. Atkinson W.&Lt. Comm., 1913, 12 R. C.
260, 312; In re Appl. City of Sparta, 1913, 12 R. C. 532, 542-543; In re
Invest. Green Bay W. Co., 1913, 12 R. C. 734, 738; Hughes et al. v. Water-
town W. Wks., 1914, 14 R. C. 669, 676.
k. WATER UTILITIES. — Continued.
Apportionment of expenses over output, capacity and consumer
expenses — Further apportionment among the different
classes of service — Interest.
178. Interest apportioned between fire and general service on the
basis of the value of the property devoted to each service. In re Appl.
Oconto City W. Supply Co., 1911, 7 R. C. 497, 535; City of Janesville v.
Janesville W. Co., 1911, 7 R. C. 628, 651 ; Fitzgerald et al. v. City of Toma-
hawk, 1911, 8 R. G. 40, 47; Civic League et al. v. Beaver Dam W. Co., 1912,
10 R. G. 661, 681; Superior Conunl. Club et al. v. Superior W. Lt. & P. Co.,
1912, 10 R. G. 704, 766; In re Appl. City of Neenah, 1912, 11 R. G. 119,
123; Rollins et al. v. Village of Montfort, 1913, 11 R. G. 278, 285; In re
Appl. Columbus W. & Lt. Comm., 1913, 11 R. G. 449, 467; In re Appl.
City of Delavan, 1913, 12 R. G. 148, 151; In re Appl. Fennimore Mun. W.
& Lt. Plant, 1913, 12 R. G. 194, 203; In re Appl. Ft. Atkinson W. & Lt.
Comm., 1913, 12 R. G. 260, 312; In re Appl. City of Sparta, 1913, 12 R. G.
532, 542-543; In re Invest. Green Bay W. Co., 1913, 12 R. G. 734, 738;
Hughes et al. v. Watertown W. Wks., 1914, 14 R. G. 669, 676.
Taxes.
179. Taxes apportioned between fire and general service on the basis
of the value of the property devoted to each service. In re Appl. Oconto
City W. Supply Co., 1911, 7 R. G. 497, 535; City of Janesville v. Janesville
W. Co., 1911, 7 R. G. 628, 651; Fitzgerald et al. v. City of Tomahawk, 1911,
8 R. G. 40, 47; Civic League et al. v. Beaver Dam W. Co., 1912, 10 R. C.
661, 681; Superior Comml. Club et al. v. Superior W. Lt. & P. Co., 1912,
10 R. G. 704, 766; In re Appl. City of Neenah, 1912, 11 R. G. Il9. 123;
Rollins et al. v. Village of Montfort, 1913, 11 R. G. 278, 285; In re Appl.
Columbus W. & Lt. Comm., 1913, 11 R. G. 449, 467; In re Appl. City of
Delavan, 1913, 12 R. G. 148, 151; In re Appl. Fennimore Mun. W. & Lt.
' Plant, 1913, 12 R. G. 194, 203; In re Appl. Ft. Atkinson W. & Lt. Comm.,
1913, 12 R. G. 260, 312; In re Appl. City of Sparta, 1913, 12 R. G. 532, 542-
543; In re Invest. Green Bay W. Co., 1913, 12 R. G. 734, 738; Hughes et
at. D. Watertown W. Wks., 1914, 14 R. G. 669, 676.
^ Apportionment of expenses among commercial con-
sumers.
180. The size of the service connection appears to be a reasonable
basis for apportionment of the capacity expenses among the various con-
sumers. In re Appl. Oconto City W. Supply Co., 1911, 7 R. G. 497, 561.
Accounting. — Cost accounting. — Determ. of unit costs 31
Apportionment of expenses for commercial consumers
between metered and flat rate consumers.
181. Capacity expenses apportioned on the basis of the number of
consumers. Output expenses apportioned on the basis of the estimated
consumption, tity of Ashland v. Ashland W. Co., 1909, 4 R. G. 273. 296;
City of Ripon v. Ripon Lt. Sc W. Co., 1910, 5 R. C. 1. 68; City of Marinette
V. City W. Co. of Marinette, 1911, 8 R. C. 334, 374.
Apportionment among flat rate consumers.
182. Apportionment of capacity expenses usually made on the basis
of the demand as deterrnined by the fixtures, etc. In re Appl. Oconto
City W. Supply Co., 1911, 7 R. C. 497, 561-562; City of Janesville v. Janes-
ville W. Co., 1911, 7 R. C. 628, 661-662.
Apportionment among metered consumers.
183. Capacity expenses apportioned on the basis of the size of the
meters. In re Appl. Oconto City W. Supply Co., 1911, 7 R. C. 497, 562;
City of Janesville v. Janesville W. Co., 1911, 7 R. C. 628, 662.
Apportionment of the value of the physical property among the
different classes of service.
184. Value of the physical property apportioned between general
and fire service. In re Appl. Madison City W. Wks., 1909, 3 R. C. 299,
318-319; City of Ashland v. Ashland W. Cq., 1909, 4 R. C. 273, 293; City
of Ripon V. Ripon Lt. Sz W. Co., 1910, 5 R. C. 1, 66; In re Appl. Jefferson
Mun. El. Lt. Sc W. Plant, 1910, 5 R. C. 555, 578; Dick et at. v. Madison
W. Comm., 1910, 5 R. C. 731, 757; Kirwin et at. v. City of Darlington,
1910, 6 R. C. 26, 36; City of Washburn v. Washburn W. Wks. Co., 1910,
6 R. C. 74, 78; City of Beloit v. Beloit W. G. Sc El. Co., 1911, 7 R. C. 187,
310; In re Appl. Oconto City W. Supply Co., 1911, 7 R. C. 497, 535; City
of Janesville v. Janesville W. Co., 1911, 7 R, C. 628, 654; Fitzgerald et at. v.
City of Tomahawk, 1911, 8 R. C. 40, 44, 56-57; City of Marinette v. City
W. Co. of Marinette, 1911, 8 R. C. 334, 352; Civic League et at. v. Beaver
Dam W. Co., 1912, 10 R. C. 661, 665; Superior Comml. Clubet at. v. Superior
W. Lt. Sc P. Co., 1912, 10 R. C. 704, 764; In re Invest. Evansville Mun.
El. Lt. Sc W. Plant, 1912, 11 R. C. 197, 201; City of Green Bay v. Green
Bay W. Co., 1913, 11 R. C. 236, 254; In re Appl. Columbus W. Sc Lt.
Comm., 1913, 11 R. C. 449, 467; In re Appl. Village of Elkhart Lake, 1913,
11 R. C. 690. 691-692; In re Appl. City of Delavan, 1913. 12 R. C. 148.
151; In re Appl. Fennimore Mun. W. Sc Lt. Plant, 1913, 12 R. C. 194,
202; In re Appl. Ft. Atkinson W. Sc Lt. Comm., 1913, 12 R. C. 260, 276;
In re Appl. City of Sparta, 1913, 12 R. C. 532, 538-539; In re Invest. Ash-
land Water Co., 1914, 14 R. C. 1. 58; Town of Vaughn v. Hurley Water Co.,
1914, 14 R. C. 291, 300; Hughes et al. v. Watertown W. Wks., 1914, 14 R. C.
669, 674; In re Invest. Waterloo Mun. W. Sc El. Plant, 1^14. 15 R. C. 534,
548.
Apportionment of the value of the physical property among the
localities served.
185. Property in joint use apportioned between Hurley and Iron-
wpod. Town of Vaughn v. Hurley W. Co., 1914, 14 R. C. 291, 297, 300.
32 Accounting. — Uniform accounts
III. UNIFORM ACCOUNTS.
a. ELECTRIC UTILITIES,
Accounting terms — Interpretation of terms in contract.
186. The term "actual station operating costs" as used in a contract
between utilities, defined. In re Appl. La Crosse G. &. El. Co. et al.,
1911, 8 R. C. 18,27.
ACTIVE LOAD.
Method of determining active load, see Rates — Electric, 1.
Treatment of incidental electrical appliances in determining active load,
see Rates — Electric, 15-16.
ADDITIONAL CONSUMERS ON A METER.
Extra dharge where more than one consumer of water is supplied through
one meter, see Minimum Charges, 16; Rates — Water, 1.
ADDITIONAL SERVICE.
Not necessary that each branch or section of the system of a railroad be
self-supporting before additional service is furnished, .see Rail-
roads, 85-90.
ADVANCE IN RATES.
See Rates.
' ADVANTAGE.
See Discrimination.
ADVERTISEMENTS.
Advertisements in telephone directories, see Telephone Utilities, 1.
ADVERTISING CAR.
Free transportation of advertising car, see Rates — Railroad, 51.
AESTHETIC CONSIDERATIONS.
Commission without power to require the expenditure of money for
aesthetic purposes in the construction of an overhead bridge at a
railroad crossing, see Railroad Commission, 85.
Purely aesthetic considerations not sufficient ground for exercise of police
power by municipality, see Electric Utilities, 2.
Appliances 33
AGENT.
Employment of agent to look after railroad station, see Station Facili-
ties, 11.
AGREEMENTS.
See Contracts.
AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENTS.
Reasonableness of rates on agricultural implements, see Rates — Rail-
road, 200.
AIR BRAKES.
See Brakes.
ALLOWANCES.
See also Rebates or Concessions.
Car stakes, failure to make allowance for weight, as ground for refund, see
Reparation, 107.
Free storage of freight, allowance of additional time under certain condi-
tions, see Demurrage Rules, 1-7; Rates — Railroad, 42-45.
Transit privileges, allowance of, see Transit Privileges, 1-12.
ALTERNATIVE TELEPHONE RATES.
See Rates — Telephone, 77.
^ ANUNCIATORS.
Anunciators for protection of railroad crossings, see Railroads, 20.
ANTE-DATED TARIFF.
Effect of ante-dating railroad tariff, see Rates — Railroad, 1.
APPLIANCES.
Rates for small power or incidental appliances, see Rates — Electric, 17.
Treatment of electrical appliances in determination of active lighting
load, see Rates — Electric, 15-16.
34 Apportionment
APPORTIONMENT.
Apportionment of cost of subway for separation of grades, see Railroads,
53.
of track connection, see Switch Connections, 11-12, 25.
of viaduct for separation of grades, see Railroads, 55.
Apportionment of expenses in the determination of unit costs for:
Electric utilities, see Accounting, 8-30.
Express companies, see Accounting, 35-38.
Gas utilities, see Accounting, 39-57.
Heating utilities, see Accounting, 63-67.
Interurban railways, see Accounting, 69-86.
Joint utilities, see Accounting, 89-118.
Railroads, see Accounting, 127-135.
Street railways, see Accounting, 138-146.
Telephone utilities, see Accounting, 151-169.
Water utilities, see Accounting, 174-183.
Apportionment of expenses of the construction of bridges used by high
way and railroad, see Bridges, 1.
Apportionment of expenses of making extensions of water mains between
utility and new consumers, see Water Utilities, 11-12.
Apportionment of joint rates between connecting carriers, see Rates —
Railroad, 70-71; Railroad Commission, 128.
Apportionment of the value of the physical property in the determination
of unit costs for:
Electric utilities, see Accounting, 31-32.
Gas utilities, see Accounting, 58-60.
Interurban railways, see Accounting, 87.
Joint utilities, see Accounting, 119-126. '
Railroads, see Accounting, 136.
Street railways, see Accounting, 147-149.
Telephone utilities, see Accounting, 170-173.
Water utilities, see Accounting, 184-185.
Method of apportionment. .
We have repeatedly held that apportionments and separations should
be made, not by general rule, but item by item, applying to each indi-
vidual item that unit which most accurately fits the same. Leonard et al.
V. W. a R. Co., 1907, 1 R. C. 724, 729.
APPRAISAL.
Methods of appraisal of the property of public utilities, see Valuation,
129-164.
APPRECIATION.
Appreciation of land values, see Valuation, 94-97, 124-125, 149-151.
Bascule Bridge 35
APPROACHES.
Highway approaches to station, see Station Facilities, 12.
Improvement of highway approaches to railroad crossing, see Railroads,
29.
AUTOMATIC CROSSING ALARM.
Installation of automatic crossing alarm, see Interurban Railways, 1;
Railroads, 20-23.
AUTOMOPHONES.
Rates for automophones, see Rates — Telephone, 1.
AVERAGE AGREEMENT.
Reasonableness of rule relating to average agreement, see Demurrage
Rules, 8.
BACK HAUL.
As element affecting concentration rates, see Rates — Railroad, 26-30.
BAGGAGE.
Articles constituting personal baggage, see Carriers, 3-4.
BALANCE SHEETS.
As matter considered in the valuation of public utilities, see Valuation,
17-20.
BARB WIRE, STAPLES, NAILS AND WIRE FENCING.
Reasonableness of rate on, see Rates — Railroad, 297.
BARK?
Reasonableness of rates on tanbark, see Rates — Railroad, 290.
BARLEY.
Reasonableness of rates on barley, see Rates — Railroad, 204, 230.
BASCULE BRIDGE.
^ See Bridges.
36 Baskets
BASKETS.
Reasonableness of rates on berry boxes and baskets, see Rates — Rail-
road, 205.
BEANS.
Reasonableness of rates on peas and beans, see Rates — Railroad, 267.
BEER.
Establishment of joint rates on beer, see Rates — Railroad, 77.
Reasonableness of rates on beer, see Rates — Railroad, 206.
BEER PACKAGES.
Reasonableness of rates on empty beer packages, see Rates — Railroad,
232.
BEETS.
Reasonableness of rates on beets, see Rates — Railroad, 289.
BELLS.
Rates for telephone extension bells, see Rates — Telephone, 17.
BELT LINE.
Use of belt line as industrial or team track not required by law, see Switch
Connections, 28.
BERRY BASKETS.
Reasonableness of rates on berry baskets and boxes, see Rates— Rail-
road, 209.
BILLING.
Discrimination due to billing separate premises belonging to a single
owner under a single bill, see Discrimination, 12.
Telephone switching charges, bills rendered directly to connecting rural
companies, see Rules and Regulations. 41.
BILLS OF LADING.
Force of the original bill of lading in determining the interstate or intra-
state character of switching service, see Transportation, 4.
Bolts .37
BINDER TWINE.
Classification under agricultural implements, see Rates — Railroad, 200.
Reasonableness of rates on binder twine, see Rates — Railroad, 294.
BINS.
Special bins in grain elevators deemed impracticable, see Warehouses, 5.
BLANKET RATES.
r
Group or blanket rates, see Rates — Railroad, 52-61.
BUNDS.
Establishment of joint rates on blinds, see Rates — Railroad, 91.
BLOCK EXPRESS RATES.
See Rates — Express, 16-17.
BLOCK SIGNAL DEVICES.
Manual block signal system for street railway, see Street Railways, 18.
Use of block signal devices, see Street Railways, 18.
BLOCKS.
Reasonableness of rates on granite blocks, see Rates — Railroad, 242.
BOATS.
Definition of.
1. There can be no doubt, that in a general sense a boat is a vessel,
for it is a "vehicle in which men or goods are carried on the water," which
is one of the definitions of a ''vessel," given in our lexicographies; and
one of the definitions of a "boat," given in a like manner, is, that it is a
"vessel to pass the water in," or "a ship of small size." (United States v.
Open Boat, 1828, 27 Fed. Gas. 346, 351) Howey v. C. M. Sc St. P. R. Co.,
1909, 3 R. G. 504, 506.
BOLTS.
Reasonableness of rates on bolts, see Rates — Railroad, 207.
38 Bonds
BONDS.
See also Stocks and Bonds.
Allowance for discount on bonds of utility, see Valuation, 82-84.
Interest on bonds and dividends on stock of railroad company appor-
tioned between intrastate and interstate traffic on basis of miles of
road, see Accounting, 135.
BOOK VALUE.
As matter considered in the valuation of public utilities, see Valuation,
17-20.
BOTTLES.
onableness of rates on bottles, see Rates — Railroad, 208.
BOX SHOOKS.
Reasonableness of rates on box shocks, see Rates — Railroad, 210.
BpXES.
Reasonableness of rates on boxes, see Rate^ — Railroad, 209.
BRAKES.
Automatic air brakes, installation of on electric railways, recommended
by Commission as a matter of safety in rendering reasonably ade-
quate service, see Street Railways, 30.
Hand brake, adequacy of for small-sized street cars, see Street Rail-
> WAYS, 38.
BRANCIL LINE.
Abandonment of Une of portion thereof, see Railroads, 1, 74-77.
Branch line rates, see Rates — Railroad, 11.
Adequacy of branch line service, see Train Service, 1-3.
Operation of branch line, see Railroads, 85-90.
Power of Commission to order operation of branch line, see Railroad
Commission. 131.
BREAD AND CAKE.
Reasonableness of rates on bread and cake, see Rates — ^Express, 15.
BREWERS' GRAINS.
Reasonableness of rates on dried brewers' grains, see Rates — Railroad,
230.
Butter and Eggs 39
BRICK.
Reasonableness of rates on brick, see Rates — Railroad, 211-212.
BRIDGED TELEPHONE SERVICE.
See Rates — Telephone 62.
BRIDGES.
Bridge used by highway and railroad — Safety of.
1. Construction of new bridge ordered by the Commission, In re
West Algoma Street Bridge in Oshkosh, 1912, 8 R. C. 441. Order modified
in 9 R. C. 357.
Toll bridge — Safety of.
2. Repairing of bridge ordered by the Commission. City of Sturgeon
Bay V. Sturgeon Bay Bridge Co., 1911, 7 R. C. 727.
BUILDING MATERIALS.
Reasonableness of rates on building materials, see Rates — Railroad, 214,
226.
BUILDING PURPOSES.
Rates for water for building purposes, see Rates — Water, 2.
BULK OF COMMODITIES.
Bulk of commodities in relation to weight as element considered in mak-
ing railroad rates, see Rates — Railroad, 151-152..
as matter considered in determining reasonableness of railroad
rates, see Rates — Railroad, 194.
BURNT SAND.
Reasonableness of rate on burnt sand, see Rates — Railroad, 278.
BUSINESS RATES.
Business and residence rates for telephone utilities, see Rates — ^Tele-
phone, 3-7.
BUTTER AND EGGS.
See also Eggs.
Establishment of concentration rates for butter and eggs, see Rates —
Railroad, 31-32.
Labels on freight packages, regulations for, see Labels.
40 Cabbages
CABBAGES.
Railway car service for movement of crop, see Railroads, 80.
CAKE.
Reasonableness of rates on bread and cake, see Rates — Express, 15.
CALLING CHARGES.
Calling charges for telephone subscribers not having direct connection with
long distance lines, see Rates — Telephone, 75.
CANDLE POWER.
Measurement of candle power in testing the performance of street lighting
systems, see Electric Utilities, 30.
CANNED GOODS.
Reasonableness of switching rates for canned goods, see Rates — Rail-
road, 312.
CAPACITY COSTS.
As element considered in making rates for electric utilities, see Rates —
Electric, 34.
for gas utilities, see Rates — Gas, 6.
for water utilities, see Rates — Water, 40-46.
CAPACITY EXPENSES.
Apportionment of capacity expenses in the determination of unit costs for
electric utilities, see Accounting, 8.
for gas utilities, see Accounting, 44.
for heating utilities, see Accounting, 63.
for water utilities, see Accounting, 174-175. '
CAPACITY OF CARS.
Minimum carload weights should be based upon practical loading ca-
pacity of cars, see Weights, 4-7.
CAPITAL STOCK.
Interest on bonds and dividends on stock of railroad company apportioned
between intrastate and interstate traffic, on basis of miles of road,
see Accounting, 134.
Requirement as to ownership of stock by telephone subscribers, see Tele-
phone Utilities, 64.
Car Storage Area 41
CAPITALIZATION.
As matter considered in the valuation of public utilities, see Valuation,
21.
Capitalization of amount claimed due for past services rendered by utility,
in the determination of the value of property of public utilities,
see Valuation, 22.
Capitalization not usually a fair index of a reasonable valuation, see
Valuation, 23.
Franchise values, statutory prohibition against capitalization of franchises
granted by a municipality at any greater sum than the amount paid
therefore into the public treasury, see Valuation, 28-35.
Monopoly privileges cannot be justly capitalized as against consumers,
see Valuation, 33.
Public utilities, what constitutes a reasonable return for public utilities,
relation of return to capitalization, see Return, 18.
Relation of nominal return to capitalization, addition of intangible value
to capitalization, see Return, 14.
CAR MILEAGE.
Empty car mileage as matter considered in making railroad rates, see
Rates — Railroad, 126-127.
CAR SERVICE.
Adequacy of ioterurban car service, see Interurban Railways, 9, 14-19.
of street car service, see Street Railways, 27-48.
Preference in furnishing cars, see Discrimination, 66-68, 85.
Railway car service, see Railroads, 78-81.
CAR SERVICE AND DEMURRAGE RULES.
See also Demurrage Rules.
Shippers responsible for demurrage charges due to failure to give proper
shipping directions, see Reparation, 116.
CAR SERVICE CHARGES.
See Demurrage Charges.
CAR STAKES.
Failure to make allowance for car stakes as ground for refund, see Repara-
tion, 107.
CAR STORAGE AREA.
Limitation of car storage area for protection of railroad crossings, see
Railroads, 30.
42 Caretaker
CARETAKER.
Employment of caretaker to care for station building, see Station Fa-
cilities, 13.
CARLOAD FREIGHT.
Charge imposed for carload freight, but not for less than carload freight,
see Rates — Railroad, 50.
Inadequate track facilities, for the transfer of carload and less than carload
freight, see Switch Connections, 25.
CARLOAD RATES.
See Rates — Railroad, 12-14.
CARLOAD WEIGHTS.
See Weights.
CARRIERS.
See also Connecting Carriers.
I. CARRIAGE OF GOODS.
II. CARRIAGE OF PASSENGERS.
III. CONTROL AND REGULATION OF COMMON CARRIERS.
I. CARRIAGE OF GOODS.
Loss of, or injury to goods — Carrier liable as insurer.
1. Common carriers are considered as insurers, and are under that
responsibility; and to prevent litigation, and avoid the necessity of going
into the examination of matters difficult to be unraveled, the law, very
justly, in case of loss, presumes against them. The rule being so rigorous,
they are entitled to demand, and do demand, a compensation for their
services in full proportion, at least, to the risks incurred. (Baldwin v.
American Express Co. 1859, 23 111. 202) Strauss v. American Express Co.
et al, 1909, 3 R. C. 556, 564.
2. Having undertaken to carry a particular kind of property which
requires an unusual service, common carriers must receive the same when
offered for carriage, provided, of course, reasonable notice has been given
to them so that they may be prepared to furnish the necessary equipment
and that there is sufficient traffic of the character to warrant the service,
but they cannot impose upon the shipper a contract exempting themselves
from their legal liabilities as common carriers. Ellman v. I. C. R. Co.,
1912, 9 R. C. 240. 247-248.
Carriers. — Control and regulation of common carriers 43
II. CARRIAGE OF PASSENGERS.
Passengers' effects — Articles constituting personal baggage.
3. It would seem, generally speaking, that anything that is ordinarily
necessary for the convenience of the passenger while on his journey, or
which is essential to the execution of some temporary employment or
pleasure at his destination, is to be considered baggage. This also ac-
cords with the view taken by the courts, although the line of demarcation
between what is and what is not baggage is not distinct. Green v. C. M. Sc
Si. P. R. Co., 1911, 8 R. C. 115, 117.
4. The rule of a street railway company requiring folded baby car-
riages or carts to be wrapped or covered with cloth or paper when offered
as baggage by passengers is unreasonable. The respondent is accordingly
ordered to accept folded baby carriages or carts as baggage without re-
quiring them to be wrapped or enclosed in cloth or paper. Martin v.
S. W. R. Co., 1911, 8 R. C. 311, 315.
III. CONTROL AND REGULATION OF COMMON CARRIERS.
Duty of carrier to furnish certain minimum of service regardless of finan-
cial conditions, see Railroads, 85-90.
Power of state to regulate rates of carriers, see Railroad Commission,
92-94.
Duty of common carriers to interchange traffic.
5. The Commission can compel railway companies to provide reason-
able facilities for the interchange of traffic between their respective lines,
but has no authority to compel interchange of traffic between land and
water carriers. City of Ashland v. M. St. P. <Sc S. S. M. R. Co., 1915,
15 R. C. 816.
6. Under the provisions of section 1797-11 (ch. 362, Laws of 1905), as
amended, it is the duty of a common carrier to deceive a carload shipment
from a competing carrier and switch the same to a convenient point on
the team track of the receiving carrier for a reasonable compensation, at
least in the absence of any showing that such action would materially
interfere with the business of the receiving carrier. Clark v. C. M. & St.
P. R. Co., 1907, 1 R. C. 733, 736.
Duty of carrier to provide station facilities.
7. Section 1797-9 (sec. 9, ch. 362, Laws of 1905), makes it the duty of
every railroad to provide and maintain adequate depots and depot build-
ings at its regular stations for the accommodation of passengers, etc. It
also requires the maintenance of adequate and suitable freight depots.
Pernj v.A.Sc W. R. Co., 1906, 1 R. C. 223, 230.
Right of carriers to earn operating expenses and some income.
8. Neither the legislature nor a commission may make a rate so low
as to deprive the carrier of its ability to earn its operating expenses and
some income on its investment, because such action has been held to
44 Carriers. — Control and regulation of common carriers
amount to deprival of the carrier of its property "without due process
of law," and also of the "equal protection of the laws." This principle
was firmly estalished in C. M. Sc St. P. R. Co. v. Minnesota, 134 U. S. 418;
Reagan v. Farmers' Lt. & T. Co., 154 U. S. 362; Smyth v. Ames, 169 U. S.
466; C. M. & St. P. R. Co. v. Thompkins, 176 U. S. 167, and other cases.
Perry v. A. iSc W. R. Co., 1906, 1 R. C. 223, 232.
Who are common carriers.
9. Whether that part of the line which extends from Dunbar to Hil-
bert Lake or Fence, as this place is sometimes called, is in every respect
a common carrier, may be open to argument. The fact, however, that it
publishes tariffs, and that it carriers passengers and transports freight
for the public over the line which it maintains and operates, probably
places it in the position of a common carrier for the purposes of this com-
plaint, as well as from the point of view of the services which it renders.
Harrison v. D. <Sc W. R. Co., 1908, 2 R. C. 801, 804.
Duty of railroad to carry all classes of traffic.
10. The distinction between a common carrier and a private one is,
that the former holds himself out in common — that is, to all persons who
choose to employ him, as ready to carry for hire — while the latter agrees
in some special case with some private individual to carry for hire. The
employment of a common carrier is a public one, and he assumes a public
duty, and is bound to receive and carry the goods of anyone who offers.
{Allen V. Sacrider, 37 N. Y. 341, 342.) Streveler v. Marathon County R.
Co., 1907, 1 R. C. 831, 837, 838.
Necessity for incorporation as a common carrier.
11. As neither the Upham Mfg. Go. nor the Copper River Land Co.
are incorporated as common carriers, they cannot legally be compelled by
the Commission to perform the duties of a common carrier. Rib River
Land Co. v. Upham Mfg. Co. et at., 1907, 1 R. C. 739, 757.
Private concern operating a spur track not a common carrier.
12. If the railroad spur in question had been built by either of the
manufacturing companies named, as a private enterprise, such company
could not be compelled to operate it as a common carrier, and even if it
assumed to perform such duties for a time, it might, whenever it saw fit,
discontinue such duties. (Wellman v. R. Connor Co., 115 Wis. 617, 621.)
Rib River Land Co. v. Upham Mfg. Co. et at., 1907, 1 R. C. 739, 757.
Railroad companies not common carriers of private cars.
13. Many court decisions have been rendered in which established
customs have received the sanction of law. There are scores of such de-
cisions of the highest courts, but we can find nothing in these which would
justify us in holding that the custom, if such this practice may be called,
oi carrying private cars has the force of law, and that long usage has made
the respondent railway company a common carrier of such cars. Hall v.
C. M. & St. P. R. Co., 1906, 1 R. C. 118, 122, 123.
Castings 45
Railroad declared tp be common carrier over entire line.
14. As the company issues tarilTs covering practically all parts of its
lines and performs the ordinary duties of a common carrier it is a common
carrier over its entire system. Paxton & Lightbody Co. v. Mattoon R. Co.
et al., 1910, 5 R. G. 531, 537.
Railroad declared to be a private logging road and not a
common carrier.
15. The line in question was operated as a private logging railroad
and not as a common carrier. The Commission is therefore without juris-
diction. Bolger et at. v. C. M. & St. P. R. Co. et at., 1913, 12 R. C. 223,
234-235.
Railroad ordered to operate a spur track as a common carrier.
16. The company's chartered duty is to operate a public highway open
to the use of all who desire to use it for a reasonable compensation. It is
not organized for the purpose of building both public and private highways,
nor do we think it has any authority to build a private highway. A spur
track built to an industry but also used for the delivery of goods to other
parties by the carrier, is part of its railw^ay system. Rib River Land Co.
V. Upham Mfg. Co. et at., 1907, 1 R. C. 739, 757 et seq.
"CARRIERS."
Establishment of joint rates on empty cheese boxes, see Rates — Rail-
road, 221.
Reasonableness of rates on empty beer packages, see Rates — Railroad,
232.
CARS.
Charges for detention of cars, see Demurrage Rules, 1-8.
Minimum carload weights, see Weights.
Number of cars insufiicient to reasonably accommodate street railway
passengers, see Street Railways, 27, 32-34.
•.Order of Commission requiring street railway cars to be kept in sanitary
condition, see Street Railways, 34.
Ordering and furnishing of cars, rules as to minimum loading requirements,
see Weights, 13-22.
Preference in distribution of various sized cars, see Discrimination, 68.
"Spotting" of freight cars on public street, see Switch Connections, 24.
Standard box cars not required under certain conditions, see Rates —
Railroad, 13.
Transferring or moving cars from one line to another, see Switch Con-
nections, 25-28.
CASTINGS.
Reasonableness of rate on castings, see Rates — Railroad, 218.
46 Cattle Guards
CATTLE GUARDS.
Installation of cattle guards for protection of farm crossing, see Railroads,
24.
CATTLE STANCHIONS.
Mixture privilege with agricultural implements, see Rates — Railroad,
200.
CEDAR POSTS.
Reasonableness of rates on cedar posts, see Rates — Railroad, 272.
CEMENT.
Establishment of joint rates on cement, see Rates — Railroad, 78.
Reasonableness of rates on cement, see Rates — Railroad, 219.
CENTRAL OFFICE EXPENSES.
«
Apportionment of central office expenses in the determination of unit
costs for telephone utilities, see Accounting, 59.
CERTIFICATE OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND
NECESSITY.
Amplication for certificate— Dismissed in particular cases.
1. Electric Utilities — In re Appl. Village of Cashton, 1908, 2 R. C.
677; In re Appl Interstate Lt. & P. Co., et al, 1912, 10 R. G. 603; City of
Sheboygan v. Sheboygan Ry. & El. Co., 1914, 14 R. G. 215.
Railroads— 7/7 re Appl. C. St. P. M. Sc 0. R. Co., \^\\,1 R. G. 741.
Telephone Utilities — In re Proposed Exten. Clinton Tel. Co., 1913,
13 R. G. 166; In re Appl. Sevastopol Farmers' Tel. Co., 1914, 14 R. G. 524.
Water Utilities — In re Appl. People's W. Lt. & P. Co., 1911,
7 R. G. 579.
Granted in particular cases.
2. Electric Utilities — In re Appl: Fox R. Millg. & P. Co., 1913,
11 R. C. 552; In Re Appl. M. L. H. <Sc T. Co., 1914, 15 R. G. 497.
Railroads— /n re Appl. Great N. R. Co., 1 09, 3 R. G. 266; In re Appl.
Milw. & Fox R. Val. R. Co., 1910, 5 R. G. 466; In re Appl. M. St. P. Sc
S. S. M. R. Co., 1910, 5 R. G. 637; In re Appl. F. & N. E. R. Co., 1911;
7 R. G. 755.
Telephone Utilities — In re Constr. of Tel. Line in Town of Addison,
Wash. Co., 1914, 14 R. G. 766.
Determination as to necessity for railroad.
3. The propriety and necessity of constructing a road was not left to
be determined by enterprising, but perhaps ill-informed, or ill-advised
Cheese Boxes 47
citizens, or by those seeking by threats of destructive competition to levy
tribute upon existing roads, but was placed in the hands of accredited
oflTicers of the state, who should act for, and in its behalf, in determining
whether the interests of the state, or of the community immediately
affected, would be promoted by the building of a road. In re Appl.
Milw. Lt. Ht. & Tr. Co., 1909, 3 R. C. 288, 289-290.
Motion for continuance of hearing on application for certificate,
denied.
In re Appl. Milw. Lt. Ht & Tr. Co., 1909, 3 R. C. 288.
Motion for dismissal of application for certificate, denied.
In re Appl. Milw. & Fox R. Val. R. Co., 1908, 2 R. C. 580.
Power of Commission respecting certificate.
4. Commission may permit amendment of application for certificate.
In re Appl. M. St. P. & S. S. M. R. Co., 1910, 5 R. C. 637, 638.
5. As the law now stands, the Commission has no authority to author-
ize the construction of a portion of a proposed line after having determined
that public convenience and necessity require the construction of the entire
line. (Eastern R. Co. of Minn. v. McCord, 1908, 136 Wis. 249.) In re Appl.
Milw. & Fox R. Val. R. Co., 1910, 5 R. C. 466, 475; In re Appl. Great
N. R. Co., 1909, 3 R. C. 266, 281.
Purpose of Public Convenience and Necessity Law.
6. Historically speaking, the Public Convenience and Necessity Law
was enacted to avoid the losses and excessive burdens upon the public
which have resulted from needless paralleling of railways, of which the
history of railways in the United States affords many convincing illustra-
tions. In re Appl. Milw. & Fox R. Val. R. Co., 1910, 5 R. C. 466, 474.
CHARGES.
See Demurrage Rules; Minimum Charges; Rates; Terminal Charges.
CHECKING STATION.
Establishment of checking station, see Telephone Utilities, 5.
CHEESE.
Joint concentration rates on cheese, see Rates — Railroad, 33.
Reasonableness of rates on cheese, see Rates — Railroad, 200.
Regulations for labels on freight packages, see Labels, 1.
CHEESE BOXES.
Establishment of joint rates on empty cheese boxes, see Rates — Railroad,
79.
Reasonableness of rates, see Rates — Railroad, 221.
48 Christmas Trees
CHRISTMAS TREES.
Reasonableness of rates on Christmas trees, see Rates — Railroad, 222.
CITIES.
See also Municipalities.
Consent of city council necessary for abandonment of street railway track
constructed under franchise granted by such council, see Street
Railways, 9-10.
Power of cities to compel the common use of tracks, see Street Railways,
3.
to control their streets, highways and public places in respect to the
use thereof by railways, see Railroads, 104-105; Street
Railways, 4, 8.
to prescribe terms for construction of spur tracks over city streets
and other public places within their corporate limits, see
Switch Connections, 13.
with respect to the manner of construction of railway crossings within
their corporate limits, see Street Railways, 12.
Power of granting street railway franchises vested in city council, see
Street Railways, 11.
CITY EQUITY IN MUNICIPALLY OWNED PLANT.
As element considered in making rates for water plants, see Rates —
Water, 34.
CLAIMS AGAINST CARRIER.
Commission has no jurisdiction over claims against common carrier pre-
sented by shipper, see Railroad Commission, 38.
CLASS RATES.
See Rates — Railroad, 15.
CLASSIFICATION.
Discrimination as between consumers of a class, prohibited, see Discrim-
ination, 7-9, 3.1.
I. IN GENERAL.
II. BASIS OF classification. .
III. CHANGE IN classification.
IV. classification in express service.
V. classification in railroad transportation.
VI. classification in telephone service.
VII. JURISDICTION of COMMISSION.
Classification. — in railroad transportation 49
I. IN GENERAL.
Classification is necessarily general.
1. Classification and minimum weights must necessarily rest upon
general and permanent rather than upon special and temporary conditions.
Crary v. M. St. P. & S. S. M. R. Co. et al., 1909, 3 R. C. 432, 439.
II. BASIS OF CLASSIFICATION.
Cost of service as basis of classification in electric rates.
2. The rates for different classes of service or of consumers should
recognize the cost of the service to these classes. City of Beloit v. Beloit
W. G. & El. Co., 1911, 7 R. C. 187, 367.
III. CHANGE IN CLASSIFICATION.
Change in construction placed on classification — Notice to .inter-
ested shippers by carriers.
3. Where a certain express rate had been charged in accordance with
the construction placed on the classification for a period of twenty or
twenty-five years, no change in such construction, resulting in higher rates,
should have been made by the carrier without reasonable. notice to inter-
ested shippers. Gross v. U. S. Express Co., 1909, 3 R. C. 342, 345.
Grounds for change.
4. Changes in rates or classification which have the effect of dis-
turbing long established business conditions which have grown up in re-
liance upon the continuance of the existing system of rates or the existing
classification, should not be made except for good reasons. {Wisconsin
Box Co. et al. v. C. M. & St. P. R. Co. et al., 1909, 3 R. C. 605, 617.) M.
Carpenter Baking Co. et al. v. Wells Fargo & Co. et al., 1911, 8 R. C. 1, 13.
IV. CLASSIFICATION IN EXPRESS SERVICE.
Reasonableness of classification of merchandise under which a multiple of
the regular merchandise rates is charged upon certain classes of
merchandise, see Rates — Express, 16.
Basis of classification.
5. Uniformity of classification throughout the country is highly de-
sirable, but it is clear that such uniformity, to be practicable, must be
based upon conditions that obtain in more than one section of the country.
M. Carpenter Baking Co. et al. v. Wells Fargo Sc Co. et al., 1911, 8 R. C. 1, 9.
V. CLASSIFICATION IN RAILROAD TRANSPORTATION.
Features determining classification.
6. The chief features in determining the proper classification of an
article are the space occupied for each one hundred pounds of the article
and the value per hundred pounds of the same. Medford Fruit Package
Co. V. W. C. R. Co. et al., 1906, 1 R. C. 44, 50.
50 Classification. — in telephone service
VI. CLASSIFICATION IN TELEPH6NE SERVICE.
Classification of subscribers.
7. The classification of telephone subscril)ers into residence and busi-
ness subscribers, with higher rates for the latter than for the former,
is lawful and permissible, not only from the point of view of the greater
cost of providing the business service, but also because of the coordinate
principle that a lower residence rate is necessary in order that a sufficiently
large number of subscribers may be secured to make the telephone valuable
to business subscribers. In re Free and Reduced Rate Tel. Service, 1908, 3
R. G. 521, 542; Olson et al. v. Wis. Tel. Co., 1909, 3 R. C. 440, 445; Davis
et al. V. Wis. Tel. Co., 1 09, 4 R. C. 370, 372; In re Appl. Pewaukee-Sussex
Tel. Co., 1911, 7 R. C. 465, 472.
VII. JURISDICTION OF COMMISSION.
Jurisdiction of Commission over' western classification insofar as it
affects intrastate shipments, see Railroad Commission, 107.
CLIPPINGS.
Reasonableness of rates on clippings and other waste lumber products,
see Rates — Railroad, 270.
COAL.
Reasonableness of rates on coal see Rates — Railroad, 223.
COKE.
Reasonableness of rates on coke, see Rates — Railroad, 224.
COLLATERAL UNDERTAKING.
Collateral undertaking of a public utility when not affecting prejudicially
the reasonable performance of its duties to the public, see Public
Utilities, 7; Telephone Utilities, 1.
COLLECTION EXPENSES.
Apportionment of collection expenses in the determination of unit costs for
electric utilities, see Accounting, 11.
COLLECTION OF FREIGHT CHARGES.
Right of common carriers to collec;t on delivery and receive payment at
their offices, see Railroads, 100.
Combination Rates 51
COMBINATION RATES.
Combination business and residence rates for telephone utilities, discrim-
inatory tendency of, see Rates — Telephone, 6-7.
Combination rates for light. and power service, see Rates — Electric, 3.
COMMERCIAL CONDITIONS.
See also Competition.
As a factor in fixing minimum weights, see Weights, 3.
As element considered in making railroad rates, see Rates — Railroad,
109.
As matter considered in determining reasonableness of railroad rates, see
Rates — Railroad, 180-181.
COMMERCIAL DOCK.
Petition for use of a private commercial dock for public use, dismissed,
see Station Facilities, 9.
COMMERCIAL EXPENSES.
Apportionment of commercial expenses in determination of unit costs, see
Accounting, 12, 46.
' COMMISSION.
See Railroad Commission.
COMMODITIES.
See various commodity subject headings.
COMMODITY RATES
See Rates — Railroad, also various commodity subject headings.
COMMON CARRIERS.
See Carriers.
COMMON LAW.
Railroad Commission Act, provisions declaratory of the common law, see
Railroad Law, 4.
COMMUTATION RATES.
See Rates — Interurban; Rates — Railroad; Rates — Street Railway.
52 Commutation Tickets
COMMUTATION TICKETS.
Commutation ticket defined, see Tickets, 3.
Facilities for purchasing commutation tickets, see Interurban Rail-
ways, 13; Street Railways, 35.
When issued must be offered impartially, see Discrimination, 54.
COMMUTATION ZONE RATES.
See Rates — Street Railway, 4.
COMPARATIVE DATA.
As element considered in making electric rates, see Rates — Electric, 20."*
As element considered in making railroad rates, see Rates — Railroad,
110-114.
As matter considered in determining reasonableness of electric rates, see
Rates — Electric, 69.
As matter considered in determining reasonableness of railroad rates, see
Rates — Railroad, 182.
COMPARISON OF OPERATING STATISTICS.
Com'^arison of operating statistics to determine efTiciency of operation
of electric utility, see Rajes — Electric, 20, 69.
w
COMPENSATION.
Compensation for property of public utilities in case of municipal acquisi-
tion, see Electric Utilities, 4-11; Water Utilities, 13-14.
Compensation for switching service, statute permits a reasonable charge
to be made for the service, see Switch Connections, 27.^
What constitutes just compensation, see Eminent Domain, 2.
COMPETITION.
Competing railroads not compelled to meet each other's rates on traflfic
moving between same points. Vesper Wood Mfg. Co. v. G. B. Sc
W. R. Co. et al., 1914, 15 R. C. 442.
Competition between railroads and interuran railways, reduced rates for
competitive points not unjust discrimination, see Discrimination,
55.
Competition between shippers as matter considered in determining ade-
quacy of train service, see Train Service, 5.
Competitive conditions as element considered in making railroad rates,
see Rates — Railroad, 115-124.
Competitive conditions as matter considered in determining reasonableness
of railroad rates, see Rates — Railroad, 183.
Competition 53
Competitive risks as element in rate of interest and profits, see Return,
41-42.
Costs of building up the business resulting from competition, see Valua-
tion, 49.
Discrimination between shippers, effect upon competitive conditions, see
Discrimination, 70, 71.
Good will, applies to competitive enterprises only, see Valuation, 56-58.
Indeterminate permit, as protection against competition in public utility
enterprises, see Indeterminate Permit, 4-6.
Joipt railroad rates are not necessarily made to meet competition, see
Rates — Railroad, 67.
Parallel road, determination as to necessity for, competition not a de-
termining element, see Certificate of Public Convenience and
Necessity, 3.
Public Convenience and Necessity Law, purpose of, to prevent destructive
competition and rate wars, see Certificate of Public Conveni-
ence AND Necessity, 6.
Rate wars between competing utilities contrary to public policy, see
Rates — Electric, 61.
Telephone utilities, assumption of Public Utilities Law that telephone
companies are subject to ordinary laws of competition, see Tele-
phone Utilities, 63.
Competition not an effective regulator in the public utilities field.
1. Competition, in the very nature of things, cannot be a proper regu-
lator in the public utility field. Competition means duplication of plants,
excessive fixed and operating expenses and useless outlay. It stands for
unnecessary tearing up and occupation of already overcrowded streets*
and alleys, the possible duplication of services on customers' premises and
for many other inconveniences and costs. In re Invest. T. M. E. R. Sc
L. Co. et al., 1912, 9 R. C. 541, 551.
Duplication of plants — Theory ^th respect to.
2. Position of the Commission with respect to duplication of plants
set forth in the following decisions: In re Appl. La Crosse Gas cfc El. Co.,
1907, 2 R. C. 3; In re Appl. Village of Cashton, 1908, 2 R. C. 677; In re
Invest Milw. Ltg Rates, 1912, 9 R. C. 544; In re Appl. Interstate Lt. & P.
Co. €t al., 1912, 10 R. C. 603, 610.
Fusion of transportation and commercial enterprises.
3. The fusion of transportation and commercial enterprises is in-
evitably fraught with grave dangers. A railway company cannot always
engage in a private competitive enterprise without employing its railway
as an instrument of aggression against its commercial competitors.
Fulmer v. Wausau Street R. Co., 1909, 3 R. C. 520, 529.
Public utilities may not be entirely free from competition.
4. While, as a rule, public utilities have less competition to contend
against than is the case for industries generally, they are not entirely
relieved therefrom. Hill et al, v. Antigo Water Co., 1909, 3 R. C. 623, 708.
54 Complaints
COMPLAINTS.
See also Procedure.
Jurisdiction of Commissi >n.
1. Commission has no jurisdiction when complaint against a pubhc
utility is filed in behalf of a municipality, but without express authority
from the municipality. City of Sheboygan v. Sheboygan Lt. P. <Sc Rg. Co.,
1908, 2 R. C. 249.
2. Commission not limited by contents of petitioner's complaint in
fixing reasonable rates. Ringle et al v. C. M. & St. P. R. Co. et at., 1911,
7 R. C. 598, 599.
COMPOSITE LIFE.
Of electric plant, see Depreciation, 28-34.
Of gas plant, see Depreciation, 35-36.
Of street railway, see Depreciation, 38-40.
Of telephone plant, see Depreciation, 41-44.
Of toll bridge, see Depreciation, 45.
Of water plant, see Depreciation, 46-51,
CONCENTRATION RATES.
See Rates — Railroad, 26-41.
CONCESSIONS.
See Rebates or Concessions.
CONCRETE BLOCKS.
Reasonableness of rates on concrete blocks, see Rates — Railroad, 225.
CONDUCTING TRANSPORTATION.
Apportionment of expenses for conducting transportation in the deter-
mination of unit costs for street railways, see Accounting, 140.
CONNECTED LOAD.
As element considered in making rates for electric utilities, see Rates —
Electric, 12, 27.
CONNECTING CARRIERS.
Joint or through rates, see Rates — Railroad, 63-102.
Power of Commission to establish joint rates between carriers in cases
where there is no mechanical union of tracks for the interchange of
traffic, see Railroad Commission, 26.
Connecting Carriers 55
Train schedules, adjustment of, between connecting carriers to provide
for interchange of traffic, see Train Service, 14-16.
Transfers, interchange of, between inter urban and street railway, see
Interurban Railways, 18.
Duty of railroad companies as to interchange of traflSc — Statu-
tory requirements.
1. Sec. 1797-11 of the Wis. Stats, provides that all railroads shall
afford all reason^le and proper facilities for the interchange of traffic
between their respective lines for forwarding and deUvering passengers
and property. City of Neenah v. Wis. Tr. Lt. Hi. & P. Co. ei al., 1910,
4 R. C. 471, 473; Teasdale v. C. Sc N. W. R. Co. et al, 1912, 9 R. C. 66, 70.
Switching service.
2. It is the duty of a common carrier to receive a carload shipment
from a competing carrier and switch the same to a convenient point on
the team track of the recei^ung carrier for a reasonable compensation.
Clark V. C. M. & St. P. R. Co., 1907, 1 R. C. 733.
Track Connections.
3. Petition for track connection dismissed. National Mtg. Co. v.
I. C. R. Co. ei al., 1912, 9 R. C. 509.
4. Track connection ordered. West Salem Can. Co. et al. v. C. M.
& St. P. R. Co. et al., 1914, 15 R. C. 254; Gratiot et al. v. I. C. R. Co. tt al.,
1914, 15 R. C. 421.
What constitutes connecting lines — Distinction between physical
connection and business connection.
5. The context of the statutes, in which the terms are found, usually
indicates whether a physical connection or business connection is intended.
Citij of Neenah v. Wis.Tr. Lt. Ht. d: P. Co. et al., 1910, 4 R. C. 471, 475.
Mechanical union of tracks and business connections not
necessarily concomitants.
6. The relation in which the terms are used, in speaking of railroad
transportation, usually indicates whether business connection or physical
connection of lines is intended. The mechanical union of tracks and
business connections are not necessarily concomitants. City of Neenah
V. Wis. Tr. Lt. Ht. Sc P. Co. et al, 1910, 4 R. C. 471, 473.
Railroad lines and steamboat lines.
7. In accoraance with the general use of the terms, railroad lines and
steamboat lines may become "connecting carriers." City of Neenah v.
Wis. Tr. Lt. Ht. & P. Co. et al., 1910, 4 R. G. 471, 475.
Railroads operating roads of different gauges.
8. Railroads operating roads of different gauges may also constitute
connecting lines within the ordinary meaning of those terms, though
mechanical union of tracks and interchange of cars upon their tracks
are impossible. City of Neenah v. Wis. Tr. Lt. Ht. & P. Co. et al., 1910,
4 R. G. 471, 474.
56 Connecting Carriers
What constitutes connecting lines — Terminals at the transfer
point may be at a distance from each other.
9. Carriers may form connecting lines for the purpose of interchange
of traffic although their terminals at the transfer point be at a distance
from each other and an intervening transfer agency be required to
deliver the goods from one carrier to the other. City of Neenah v. Wis.
Tr. Lf. Hi. & P. Co. et al., 1910, 4 R. G. 471, 473.
CONNECTING LINE SWITCHING CHARGES.
See Switching Charges.
CONNECTING LINES.
See Connecting Carriers.
CONNECTIONS.
Connections between carriers, see Connecting Carriers, 1-9.
Connections for passengers of street railways, see Street Railways, 48.
Duty of railroad company to provide adequate track connections, see
Switch Connections, 14-19, 27.
Railroad trains, connection at junction, see Train Service, 8, 14-16.
Telephone lines, physical connection of, see Telephone Utilities, 31-41.
CONSTITUTION.
Contract whose performance depends upon the continuance of a franchise
not a vested interest under state constitution, see Vested
Interests, 1.
Franchises, subject to amendment or repeal by legislature under sec. 1,
Art. XI, of the state constitution, see Franchises, 7.
CONSTRUCTION.
Approval of specification for construction of railroad, see Railroads, 2.
Continuous construction as element in the valuation of public utilities,
see Valuation, 75.
Interest during construction as element considered in valuation of public
utilities, see Valuation, 90-91.
Overhead expenses during construction as element in the valuation of
public utilities, see Valuation, 103-106.
Rates for water for construction purposes, see Rates — Water, 2.
CONSTRUCTION MATERIAL.
Reduced rates on construction material for manufacturing plants, see
Rates — Railroad, 17.
Reasonableness of rates on construction material, see Rates — Railroad,
214-226.
Continuous Construction 57
CONSTRUCTION OF STATUTES.
Public Utilities Law, sections construed, see Public Utilities Law.
Railroad Law, sections construed, see Railroad Law.
Stock and Bond Law, sections construed, see Stock and Bond Law.
Water Power Law, sections construed, see Water Power Law.
CONSUMER CHARGES.
See Minimum Charges.
CONSUMER COSTS.
As element considered in determining minimum charge for electric
utilities, see Minimum Charges, 6.
As element considered in making rates for electric utilities, see Rates —
Electric, 34.
for gas utilities, see Rates — Gas, 6.
for water utilities, see Rates — Water, 40-46.
CONSUMER EXPENSES.
See also Minimum Charges.
Apportionment of consumer expenses in the determination of unit costs
for electric utilities, see Accounting, 8.
for gas utilities, see Accounting, 44.
for heating utilities, see Accounting, 63.
for water utilities, see Accounting, 174-175.
CONSUMPTION.
Distribution of consumption of steam by months for heating purposes,
see Heating Utilities, 2.
CONSUMPTION EXPENSES.
Apportionment of consumption expenses in the determination of unit
costs for electric utilities, see Accounting, 13-14.
CONTINUANCE.
See Procedure.
CONTINUOUS CONSTRUCTION.
As element in the valuation of public utilities, see Valuation, 75.
58 Continuous Service
CONTINUOUS SERVICE.
As][element considered in making rates for electric utilities, see Rates —
Electric, 22.
Electric utility ordered to furnish continuous service, see Electric
Utilities, 41.
Telephone utiUty ordered to furnish continuous service, see Telephone
Utilities, 46.
CONTRACT OF SHIPMENT.
Character of shipment, whether intrastate or interstate, force of the
original bill of lading in determining character of switching service,
see Transportation, 4.
Contract for different rate than that stated in the published
tariff.
1. The fact that an agent of a railroad company may have quoted a
different rate to a shipper than the one provided in the published tariff
is no ground for a recovery of the amount the shipper was obliged to pay
in excess of the rate so quoted. Merrill Woodenware Co. u. C. M. Sc St. P.
R. Co., 1908, 3 R. C. 54, 55; Barney v. G. B. Sc W. R. Co. et aL, 1910,
4 R. C. 775, 776; Osceola Mill & Elevator Co. v. M. St. P Sz S. S. M. R. Co.,
1910, 5 R. C. 291, 292; Callaway Fuel Co. v. C. & N. W. R. Co. et al.,
1914, 13 R. C. 694.
Contract to waive the provision of the statute requiring repara-
tion claims to be filed w^ithin six months.
2. Any claim filed wdth the Commission after six months have elapsed
from the time of the delivery of the shipment at destination, is barred by
the statute. The statute cannot be waived by agreement of parties.
Sinaiko Bros. v. C. M. & St. P. R. Co., 1910, 5 R. C. 426. 428.
Mistake in quoting rate.
3. Errors in billing, or erroneous quotations of rates by agents of
railway companies, do not relieve the shipper of the obligation of paying
the lawful rates prescribed in the published tariffs, nor are the railway
companies for any such reasons permitted to exact less than such rates.
Merrill Woodenware Co. v. C. M. <Sc St. P. R. Co., 1908, 3 R. C. 54,56;
Mayer v. I. C. R. Co. et al., 1909, 4 R. C. 268; Barney v. G. B. & W. R.
Co. et al., 1910, 4 R. C. 775, 777; Wheeler-Timlin Lbr. Co. v. C. M. & St. P.
R. Co., 1910, 6 R. C. 434.
CONTRACTORS.
1. The Commission has no jurisdictioq over the authorization of
contractors to do work or over their dealings with private parties. Free-
holders etc. of Dodge County v. McWilliams, 1914, 13 R. C. 603, 605.
Contracts 59
CONTRACTS.
Commission not authorized to pass upon validity of private contracts
entered into by public utilities with their patrons, see Railroad
Commission, 42.
Contract between municipality and another party providing for the
pumping of water does not relieve municipal "v^^ater plant of its
duty as a public utility, see Water Utilities, 25.
Contract between a municipality and an individual or corporation for
the pumping of water or furnishing street lighting does not confer
.a public utility franchise upon such individual or corporation, see
Franchises, 3.
Contract between private concern and railroad company regarding the
use of a spur track as a private highway, discriminatory, see Dis-
crimination, 79; Railroads, 76.
Contract between two telephone companies dividing territory in which
they render service is valid, see Telephone Utilities, 44.
Contract whose performance depends upon the continuance of a fran-
chise not a vested interest under state constitution, see Vested
Interests, 1.
Contractual relations, payments of rates for services rendered by public
utility to be uniform without reference to contractual relations be-
tween utility and its customers, see Rules and Regulations, 9.
Exceptions respecting public utility contracts provided in section 1797/n-
91, do not apply to indefinite subscription agreements, see Rates —
Telephone, 10.
Interpretation of accounting terms in contract, see Accounting, 186.
Jurisdiction of Commission over contracts between connecting carriers,
see Railroad Commission, 43.
Jurisdiction of Commission over public utility rates established by con-
tract, see Railroad Commission, 42.
Liability of carrier as insurer, limitation of, by contract, see Carriers, 2.
Power of Commission to make an order in violation of the terms of an
existing franchise, see Franchises, 8-9,
Power of Commission to vary a rate fixed in a special franchise granted
by a municipality to a street railway company, see Railroad Com-
mission, 132.
Signing of yearly contracts for protection of telephone utility, see Rates —
Telephone, 12.
Special contracts for electric service, when void as against public policy,
see Rates — Electric, 4. '
Status of contract entered into by telephone company and railroad com-
pany, providing that the railroad company may use only the tele-
phones of the contracting telephone company, see Station Facili-
ties, 32.
Status of special rates provided for in contracts entered into before the
passage of the Public UtiUties Law, see Rates — Telephone, 10-11.
60 Contracts
Agreement to enter into contract at fiiture time. ^
1. It is elementary that the agreement to enter into a contract at
some future time in order to be legally effective must be definite in all its
terms and leave . nothing for determination to future negotiations. It
must be certain in its provisions or capable of being rendered certain upon
the happening of events, which are not the result of future negotiations.
City of Green Baij^v. Green Bay Tr. Co., 1911, 7 R. G. 715, 723. ,
Breach of contract — Damages for.
2. The Commission is not a court and therefore has no authority to
award damages for breach of contract entered into by pubic utilities with
their patrons. Bereml v. Wis. Tel. Co., 1909, 4 R. C. 150, 154.
Construction of contracts.
3. The construction of contracts is not a matter within the jurisdic-
tion of the Commission. The courts must be relied upon for settling all
disputes arising out of contractual relations. City of Ashland v. Ashland
Water Co., 1909, 4 R. C. 273, 300.
Contracts entered into prior to enactment of Public Utilities law.
4. Contracts made prior to April 1, 1907, are excepted from the opera-
tion of the statute, although they be discriminatory in fact. Over such
contracts the Commission has no control. They are binding until their
expiration. National Travelers' Assn. of Amer. v. Wis. Tel. Co., 1910,
5 R. C. 678, 687-688.
r
Contracts entered into subsequent to enactment of Public Utilities
Lavr,
5. Contracts entered into subsequent to the enactment of the Public
Utilities Law, contravening the provisions of such law, are void. National
Travelers' Assn. of Amer. v. Wis. Tel. Co., 1910, 5 R. C. 678, 688.
Contract for service and facilities.
6. The form of contract is primarily a matter within the power and
discretion of the utility. The Commission has no power to interfere with
it unless its terms are contrary to good public policy and transgress the
statutory provisions relating to service and rates. Davi^ et at. v. Wis.
Tel. Co., 1909, 4 R. C. 370, 373.
Contracts for telephone service and facilities— Contracts due to
monopoly conditions.
7. It may be inferred that the Wis. Tel. Co. can exact such charges
and conditions because of monopoly conditions, or because it owns or
controls the greater portion of the more important toll fines in the state.
The effectiveness of contracts for the use of equipment is more likely to
depend upon monopoly conditions than upon superior qualities or greater
efficiency, and may, therefore, be contrary to public policy. Connor et at.
V. Marsh et al., 1911, 6 R. C. 589, 603-604.
Cost of Service 61
Waiver of right to damages under public service contracts.
8. Where the city paid its bills subject to the express stipulation that
all of its rights under the contract were reserved it sufficiently apprised
the utility company of its unwillingness to accept the service furnished
as a complete service. Such an express reservation of rights is sufficient
to prevent the establishment of a waiver. (Olson v. Mayor, 1883, 56 Wis.
551, 556.) In re Jt. Appl. Waupaca El. Lt. Sc R. Co. and Waupaca, 1912,
8 R. C. 586, 676.
CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY.
See Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity.
COOKING RATES.
Rates for electrical cooking and heating, see Rates— Electric, 5.
CORDWOOD
Reasonableness of rates on cordwood, see Rates — Railroad, 298.
CORN.
Reasonableness of rates on green corn, see Rates — Railroad, 227.
COST ACCOUNTING.
See Accounting. .
COST OF BUILDING UP THE BUSINESS.
Net cost of building up the business, as element in the valuation of public
utilities, see Valuation, 45-55.
COST OF REPRODUCTION NEW.
As basis of valuation of public utilities, see Valuation, 71-116.
As matter consi 'ered in the valuation of public utilities, see Valuation,
.145-160.
COST OF SERVICE.
As element considered in making rates for electric utilities, see Rates —
Electric, 21-42.
for express companies, see Rates — Express, 3-4.
for gas utilities, see Rates — Gas, 3-8.
for railroads, see R\tes — Railroad, 125-134.
for street railways, see Rates — Street Railway, 8.
for telephone utilities, see Rates — Telephone, 32-33.
for toll i)ridges, see Rates — Toll Bridge, 1.
for water utilities, see Rates — Water, 28-48.
62 Cost of Service
'As matter considered in determining reasonableness of electric rates, see
Rates — Electric, 71-72.
of express rates, see Rates — Express, 7-14.
of gas rates, see Rates^ — Gas, 12.
of railroad rates, see Rates — Railroad, 184.
of street railway rates, see Rates — Street Railway, 15-16.
of telephone rates, see Rates — ^Telephone, 51-53.
of water rates, see Rates — Water, 72-73.
Determination of unit costs for electric utilities, se^ Accounting, 8-34.
for express companies, see Accounting, 35-38.
for gas utilities, see Accounting, 39-62.
for heating utilities, see Accounting, 63-68.
for interurban railways, see Accounting, 69-88.
for joint utihties, see Accounting, 89-126.
for railroads, see Accounting, 127-137.
for street railways, see Accounting, 138-150.
for telephone utilities, see Accounting, 151-173.
for water utilities, see Accounting, 174-185.
Discrimination between customers of electric utility due to failure to ob-
serve difference in cost between long and short-hour use of current,
see Discrimination, 15.
COURTS.
Judicial review of orders of Commission, question of unreasonableness or
unlawfulness of order, see Railroad Commission, 108-109.
CREAM.
Adequacy of train service for shipment of milk and cream, see Train
Service, 9.
Reasonableness of rates on milk and cream, see Rates — Railroad, 258.
CREAM SEPARATORS.
Mixture privilege with agricultural impleniients, see Rates — Railroad,
200.
CRENOTHRIX.
Valuation of water plant, depreciation due to crenothrix as element in
valuation, see Valuation, 121.
/
CROSS CONNECTIONS.
Cross connections for water mains, see Water Utilities, 35.
CROSSINGS.
See Interurban Railways; Railroads; Street Railways.
Dams 68
CROSS-OVER TRACK.
See Track Connections.
CROSS-TOWN LINES.
Street railway company ordered to operate through cars to down-
town district from cross-town lines. Twenty-second Ward Adv. Assn. v.
T. M: E. R. <Sc L. Co., 1914, 14 R. C. 788.
CRUSHED STONE.
Reasonableness of rates^on crushed stone, see Rates — Railroad, 228, 244.
CUCUMBERS.
Establishment of concentration rate on cucumbers and onions, see Rates-
Railroad, 34.
Reasonableness of rates on cucumbers, see Rates — Railroad, 229.
*
CULVERTS.
Reconstruction of culverts, maintenance by railroad company in order
to protect adjacent land, see Railroads, 59.
CUMULATIVE BILLING.
Discrimination due to billing separate premises belonging to a single
owner under a single bill, see Discrimination, 12.
DAMAGES.
See also Injuries and Damages.
Commission without authority to award damages for breach of contract,
see Contracts, 2.
Commission without authority to award damages due to negligence of
carrier, see Railroad Commission, 116.
Damages to owner of joint property as element considered in determining
purchase price of public utility, see Valuation, 25.
Waiver of right to damages under public service contracts, see Con-
tracts, 8.
DAMS.
See NA^ igable Waters; Water Powers.
>
64 ■ ''Dead Weighf
a
DEAD WEIGHT"
As element considered in making rates for railroads, see Rates — Rail- ,
ROAD, 151-152.
As matter considered in determining reasonableness of railroad rates, see
Rates— Railroad, 187, 189, 194.
Proportion of "dead weight" in carload as compared to less than carload
freight, see Rates — Railroad, 12.
DEALER'S LICENSE.
See License.
DEFINITIONS.
See specific headings.
DELAYS.
Free time, allowance for delays, see Demurrage Rules, 1-8.
Unnecessary delays as a result of inadequate track connections, see
Switch Connections, 25, 27.
DELEGATION OF LEGISLATIVE POWER.
When action of legislature is not a delegation of power.
1. Action of legislature in authorizing administrative body to de-
termine the facts as to the reasonableness of rates is not a delegation of
legislative power. Buell v. C. M. & St. P. R. Co., 1907, 1 R. G. 324, 337-
345.
DELIVERY AT DESTINATION.
Discrimination between different transfer companies.
1. Receivers of freight have the right to designate the person who shall
teafn their goods from the depot, and delivery orders given by them should
be strictly observed and regarded as private communications. Cohn v. C.
& N. W. R. Co., 1912, 8 R. C. 569, 576-578.
Jurisdiction of Commission over delivery of interstate shipments
upon their arrival within the state.
2. It seems that the power of the state to make regulations for the
delivery of interstate shipments upon their arrival within the state comes
within the second class of state legislation as classified in Covington etc.
Bridge Co. v. Kentucky, 1894, 154 U. S. 204. Within this class fall those
state enactments which were passed under the police power of the state
in the absence of congressional action upon the subje t, and "which are
local in their operation, although they may incidentally affect interstate
commerce." Strauss v. American Express Co. et al., 1909, 3 R. C. 556,
572-573.
Delivery Service Limits 65
Necessity of making personal delivery — Duty of telegraph com-
panies.
3. It is the duty of a telegraph company which receives a message for
transmission, directed to an individual at one of its stations, to deliver that
message to the person to whom it is addressed, with reasonable diligence
and in good faith. That is a part of its contract, implied by taking the
message and receiving payment therefor. (Western Union Telegraph Co.
V. James, 1896, 162 U. S. 650.) Strauss v. American Express Co. et al.,
1909, 3 R. C. 556, 573.
Place of delivery and necessity of making personal delivery — Duty
of express companies.
4. In its application to express companies the rule that there must be
an actual delivery to the proper person at his residence or place of business,
is probably not without its exceptions in certain jurisdictions. Strauss v.
American Express Co. et al.y 1909, 3 R. G. 556, 563.
DELIVERY BY CARRIER.
Place of delivery and necessity of making personal delivery — duty of ex-
press companies, see Delivery at Destination, 4.
I
DELIVERY SERVICE.
Express delivery.
1. Delivery service by express companies is not free. It is a part of
the service covered by the rate. Strauss v. American Express Co. et al.,
1909, 3 R. C. 556, 570.
DELIVERY SERVICE LIMITS.
Express delivery limits.
1. No injustice will be done to express companies by requiring them
to extend equal service to all inhabitants residing in a municipality where
they maintain messengers, wagons and horses for collecting and delivering
goods. Strauss v. American Express Co. et at., 1909, 3 R. G. 556, 570.
2. There must be some limits to the area within which express com-
panies may be required to deliver express and the boundaries of the muni-
cipality are most satisfactory for this purpose. (Strauss v. American Exp.
Co. 1909, 3 R. C. 556.) Heineman Lbr. Co. v. Wells Fargo Exp. Co., 1914,
13 R. G. 594, 596.
Must not be arbitrary,
3. While it is true that some territorial limits, within which only the
duty of collecting and delivering goods may prevail, must of necessity be
prescribed at places where messengers and wagons are maintained for the
purpose, nevertheless, in fixing such limits care must be taken that no
undue or unjust disrcimination between customers shall result as a conse-
quence thereof. Strauss v. American Express Co. et al., 1909, 3 R. G. 556,
568-569.
66 Demand
DEMAND.
Assessment of maximum demand, discrimination in assessment, see Dis-
crimination, 10.
Method of determining demand, see FIates — Electric, 6.
DEMAND FACTOR.
As element considered in making electric rates, see Rates — Electric, 27.
Relation of demand to capacity of plant, see Electric Utilities, 17.
DEMURRAGE RULES.
Reasonableness of demurrage charges for delays caused by failure of rail-
road company to properly fulfill its agreement to provide certain
track facilities, see Reparation, 118.
caused by floods, see Rates — Railroad, 42.'
caused by infrequent mail service, or inclement weather, see Rates —
Railroad, 44.
Refund of demurrage charge accrued through negligence of carrier, see
Reparation, 117.
due to failure of shipper to give proper shipping directions, see
Reparation, 116.
ordered on basis of free time allowance under statute, see Repara-
tion, 119.
Shippers responsible for demurrage charges due to failure to give proper
shipping directions, see Reparation, 115.
Time allowed for unloading — -Allowance of additional compen-
satory time.
1. To allow additional compensatory time for the time consignee is
deprived of access to the cars, would result in discrimination and rebates
of the worst character, which would be difficult to detect and more difficult
to prove. The demurrage rules now in effect are adequate in most in-
stances and equalize fairly well the loss of shippers and railroads occasioned
by delays in unloading cars. Allen IJ)r. Co. v. C. M. & St. P. R. Co.j
1910, 6 R. C. 14, 16-17.
Free time allowance — Modification under statute.
2. Section 1797-10/n of the Wis. Statutes which in substance provides
that carload freight must on the average be moved seventy-five miles per
day, ordered suspended for thirty days insofar as sugar beet traffic was
concerned. In re Appl. C. M. & St. P. R. Co., 1911, 8 R. C. 101, 103;
In re Appl. M. St. P. & S. S. M. R. Co., 1911, 8 R. G. 129, 130.
Note. — Orders revoked shortly after being issued. In re Appl. C. M. <fr St. P.
R. Co. et al, 1911, 8 R. C. 278.
3. As the delay in unloading after receipt of the shipment by the con-
signee was less than the time the shipment was in transit in excess of the
statutory allowance, the demurrage charge exacted of the petitioner was
illegal. Krull Comm. Co. v. C. & N. W. R. Co., 1912, 9 R. G. 60, 61.
Depreciation 67
Adequacy of present rules.
4. The demurrage rules now in effect are adequate in most instances
to equalize fairly well the loss of shippers and railroads occasioned by de-
lays in unloading cars. Allen Lbr. Co. v. C. M. & St. P. R. Co., 1910,
6 R. G. 14, 17.
Free time allowance for delays.
5. It would seem advisable for the railway companies to amend the
demurrage rules to make allowances for delays in unloading cars which are
occasioned by the failure of the railway company to provide promised
track facilities within the time agreed upon with shippers. Greiling Bros.
Co. V. C. M. & St. P. R. Co., 1914, 14 R. G. 449, 453.
6. Recommended that roads operating in Wisconsin who are members
of the Wis. Demurrage Bureau put into effect a rule providing for addi-
tional free time allowance when delay is due to infrequent mail service or
prohibitive conditions brought about by the weather. Albright et al. v.
C. St. P: M. & 0. R. Co., 1914, 14 R. G. 763.
7. Recommended that roads operating in Wisconsin who are members
of the Wis. Demurrage Bureau put into effect a rule providing for allow-
ance of additional free storage to patrons in proportion of their distance
from the railroad station. Buckman v. C. Sc N. W. R. Co., 1914, 15 R. G.
405.
Reasonableness of rules — Rule relating to average agreement.
8. The provision that seven days' credit may apply in cancellation
of debits accruing on any one car appears somewhat excessive and five
days is deemed a reasonable allowance. A change in the classification of
cars should also be made to meet present traffic conditions. It is ordered
that rule 9 be changed in accordance with the requirements. Order not
confined to pulp wood traffic, but made general in its application. In re Car
Service and Demurrage Rules, 1911, 8 R. G. 579, 580-581.
DEPOSITS.
Regulations as to payment of rates for services rendered by public utility,
requirement of money deposit, see Rules and Regulations, 21-26.
DEPOTS.
See Station Facilities.
DEPRECIATION.
Apportionment of depreciation in the determination of unit costs for
electric utilities, see Accounting, 15.
for gas utilities, see Accounting, 47-48.
for heating utilities, see Accounting, 64.
for interurban railways, see Accounting, 79.
for joint utilities, see Accounting, 98-100.
for telephone utilities, see Accounting, 160.
for water utilities, see Accounting, 177.
68 Depreciation
As element in the valuation of public utilities, see Valuation, 76-81.
Depreciation due to crenothrix, as element in the valuation of water utili-
ties, see Valuation, 121.
Depreciation in value of land, see post, 1.
Duty of Commission to allow for depreciation in passing upon rate schedules
of public utilities, see Railroad Commission, 16.
EUmination of depreciation as element in making rates for municipal
utilities, discrimination in favor of consumers as against taxpayers,
see Discrimination, 45.
I. IN GENERAL. III. DEPRECIATION RESERVE
II. DEPRECIATION FUND. CHARGE.
IV. RATES OF DEPRECIATION.
I. IN GENERAL.
Nature of depreciation.
1. Depreciation is an item that is always present in public utilities.
Practically all parts of the physical property of the plants, outside of
perhaps the land, begin to deteriorate as soon as the plant is ready for
operation, and this deterioration continues until the property becomes
useless. Part of this deterioration is due to wear and tear, and part of
it is due to natural causes, such as the elements, etc. Hill et al. v. Antigo
Water Co., 1909, 3 R. C. 623, 642-643; In re Appl. La Crosse Gas & El.
Co., 1.907, 2 R. C. 3, 11; 7/2 re Appl. Cumberland Mun. El. Lt. Plant, 1909,
4 R. C. 214, 217; State Journal Prig. Co. et al. v. Madison Gas & El. Co.,
1910, 4 R. C. 501, 559; Ross et al v. Burkhardt Mllg. & El. P. Co., 1910,
5 R. C. 139, 143; In re Fond du Lac Water Co., 1910, 5 R. C. 482, 515;
In re Appl. Jefferson Mun. El. Lt. & W. Plant, 1910, 5 R. C. 555, 560;
City of Whitewater v. Whitewater El. Lt. Co., 1910, 6 R. C. 132, 137.
2. Depreciation may be described as the amount that must be regular-
ly set aside to cover wear and tear, etc., in order to keep the original in-
vestment intact. It is an operating expense and should be borne by the
customers through the rates paid by them for the services rendered by the
utiUty. Hillet al. v. Antigo Water Co., 1909, 3 R. C. 623, 641.
3. Depreciation rnight be defined as the amount which makes up the
difference between the value of the plant at any period after construction,
although kept in good running condition by ordinary repairs, and the orig-
ingal cost value of the plant. In re Appl. Cumberland and Mun. El. Lt.
Plant, 1909, 4 R. C. 214, 217.
4. Depreciation does not represent actual expenditure, but the
amount properly reserved to offset the loss in value occurring to the oper-
ating plant. Cunningham et al. v. Chippewa Falls W. Wks. & Ltg. Co.,
1910, 5 R. C. 302, 328.
5. Depreciation is an element of expense just as much as wages, fuel,
supplies or any other element which is ordinarily charged to the operation
or maintenance of the plant. In re Appl. Jefferson Mun. El. Lt. Sc W.
Plant, 1910, 5 R. C. 555, 560.
6. It seems that the loss from discontinuing all use of certain portions
of the property, with the introduction of a higher grade of service, is such
Depreciation. — Depreciation fund 69
a loss as should be provided for in the setting aside of a depreciation re-
serve. King et al. v. Wis. Tel Co., 1912, 10 R. G. 517, 521.
Necessity of allowance for depreciation.
7. Losses due to depreciating value and efficiency must be made
good by regular renewals of the property if the investment is to be kept
intact and the efficiency of the service maintained. The cost of depre-
ciation is by its nature an operating expense and should be borne by the
consumers in the form of rates that are high enough to cover this cost.
In re Appl. Fennimore Mun. W. <Sc Lt. Plant, 1913, 12 R. C. 194, 200;
In re Appl. J. L. Ball, 1907, 2 R. C. 105, 112; State Journal Prig. Co. et al.
V. Madison Gas. & El. Co., 1910, 4 R. C. 501, 599; Cunningham et al. v.
Chippewa Falls W. Wks. cfc Ltg. Co., 1910, 5 R. C; 302, 328; In re Appl.
Jefferson Mun. El. Lt. & W. Plant, 1910, 5 R. C. 555, 560; City of Milwaukee
V. T. M. E. R. & L. Co., 1912, 10 R. C. 1, 216; Rollins et al. v. Village of
Montfort, 1913, 11 R. G. 278, 283; In re Purchase Manitowoc El. Lt.
Plant, 1914, 13 R. G. 452, 464; In re Service and Rates Stevens Pt. Ltg. Co.,
1914, 14 R. G. 350, 364.
8. The company's contention that because the property is a con-
tinuous property which will probably never be entirely scrapped at one
time, it should be considered that there has been no element of depre-
ciation which should be deducted from the cost of reproduction is not
tenable. In re Purchase Janesville W.Wks. Plant, 1915, 15 R. G. 674, 695.
II. DEPREGIATION FUND.
Depreciation fund as distinguished from depreciation reserve.
9. A proper depreciation reserve is required of all utilities. A
distinction, however, should be drawn between a depreciation reserve,
which is required, and a depreciation reserve fund, which is optional.
The fund is created by actually setting aside cash or other assets out of
which future payments are to be made. A reserve is merely an account
which designates the amount and character of certain transactions
within the business. In re Appl. Fennimore Mun. W. & Lt. Plant,
1913, 12 R. G. 194, 209.
Expenditures from fund irregular.
10. Depreciation is a regular charge, but the expenditures of the
depreciation fund are irregular. Thus it happens that there may be
long periods in the life of a plant during which depreciation is accumulating
but when no renewals of any considerable proportions are made. State
Journal Prtg. Co. et al. v. Madison Gas Sz El. Co., 1910, 4 R. G. 501, 559.
Use of fund.
11. Any use of the depreciation fund by which it is permanently
diverted from the use for which it is intended, is a violation of the principle
upon which such funds rest and contrary to the requirements for which
they are built up. Hill et al. v. Antigo Water Co., 1909, 3 R. G. 623, 641;
In re Men. & Mar. Lt. & Tr. Co., 1909, 3 R. G. 778, 790; State Journal
Prtg. Co. et al. v. Madison Gas & El. Co., 1910, 4 R. G. 501, 600; City of
70 Depreciation, — Depreciation fund
Whitewater v. Whitewater EL Lt. Co., 1910, 6 R. C. 132, 138; Superior
Comml. Club et al. v. Duluth Street Ry. Co., 1912, 11 R. C. 1, 21.
12. It is not usually necessary for any utility to keep the offsetting
assets to care for depreciation requirements in actual cash on hand. The
assets for this purpose may be represented in plant, in current assets such
as cash, or in a combination of the two. In re Appl. City of Sparta,
1913, 12 R. G. 532, 540.
III. DEPRECIATION RESERVE CHARGE.
Amount of annual charge.
13. An estimate of the proper amount yearly to be contributed to
the depreciation reserve must take into consideration the life of each
separate unit of equipment, its value, the interest that the reserve will
earn before it is used to pay for replacements, and the amount that will
be realized for scrap value when it is discarded. In re Men. <Sc Mar.
Lt. & Tr. Co., 1909, 3 R. G. 778, 846; Hillet al. v. Antigo Water Co., 1909,
3 R. C. 623, 643; State Journal Prtg. Co. et al. v. Madison Gas Sz El. Co.,
1910, 4 R. C. 501, 599; Lamb v. Eastern Wis. Ry. Sc Lt. Co., 1911, 6 R. C.
473, 485; King et al. v. Wis. Tel. Co., 1912, 10 R. C. 517, 521; In re Invest.
Ashland W. Co., 1914, 14 R. G. 1, 45, 46; Jones et al. v. Berlin Public
Service Co., 1914, 15 R. G. 121, 129.
Amount of flat annual charge in case the depreciation fund earns
interest.
14. In case the depreciation fund can be made to earn a fair rate of
interest, the amount of the flat annual charge can be decreased in pro-
portion to the amount of the earnings on the depreciation funds. In re
Badger Tel. Co., 1908, 3 R. C. 98, 99, 101; City of Ashland v. Ashland
Water Co., 1909, 4 R. C. 273, 279-281; State Journal Prtg. Co. et al. v.
Madison Gas Sc El. Co., 1910, 4 R. G. 501, 611-612.
Determination of a.^nual charge and composite life.
15. The average life and the annual amounts required to make up the
depreciable plant values, are estimated on two bases — the so-called
compound interest curve or "sinking fund" basis and the straight line
basis. State Journal Prtg. Co. et al. v. Madison Gas <Sc EL Co., 1910, 4 R. C.
501, 604; In re AppL Ft. Atkinson W. & Lt. Com/77., 1913, 12 R. G. 260,
285.
Determination of annual charge — Basis of charge.
16. The property value upon which the depreciation allowance must
be based, or, more properly speaking the amount which the estimated
yearly reserve should in the end equal in a period of years approximating
the average life of the plant, is the cost new of the depreciable property.
' State Journal Prtg. Co. et aL v. Madison Gas <Sc EL Co., 1910, 4 R. G.
501, 601.
Depreciation. — Depreciation reserve charge 71
Difference between two methods with respect to practical
application.
17. Where the Ufe of a utility is comparatively short and where
advances in the art are numerous as in the case of an electric plant, it
would seem that the sinking fund method of determining depreciation
would be more or less impracticable and difficult of application. On the
other hand it would seem that the sinking fund method is to be recom-
mended in the case of water utilities, as more exactly corresponding to
the actual experience of such plants and as more economical and satis-
factory in the long run. In re Fond du Lac Water Co., 1910, 5 R. G
482, 503.
18. The practicability of obtaining interest at an average rate of as
much as 4 per cent on funds which are frequently drawn upon and added
to is of sufficient doubt to lead to the assumption and use of a more
conservative rate. The amounts set aside annually for depreciation must
increase with the magnitude of the depreciable property, although
perhaps not in exactly direct proportions. In re Invest. Ashland Water
Co., 1914, 14 R. G. 1, 46.
Under the sinking fund method.
19. Under the sinking fund method for determining depreciation it is
assumed that the amount set aside annually should be invested at com-
pound interest, and that the amount so set aside, plus the interest, will
be sufficient to cover the replacement at the end of the life of the property.
Hill et al. v. Antigo Water Co., 1909, 3 R. G. 623, 643; State Journal Prtg.
Co. et al. V. Madison Gas <Sc El. Co., 1910, 4 R. G. 501, 604; City of Ripon
V. Ripon Lt. & W. Co., 1910, 5 R. G. 1, 20; In re Fond du Lac Water Co.,
1910, 5 R. G. 482, 502; City of Racine v. Racine Gas Lt. Co., 1911, 6 R. G.
228, 296; Schicker v. Rockford & I. R. Co., 1911, 6 R. G. 695, 709.
20. It does not seem fair to allow a continuously operating property
an expense for financing depreciation on a straight line basis. A large
company with a number of joint utilities and subsidiary properties under
its control and with numerous opportunities for commercial investment,
can readily invest any offsetting assets of the depreciation reserve lia-
bilities at an average of 4 per cent return or better. In re Service of
T. M. E. R. & L. Co. in Milw., 1913, 1.3 R. G. 178, 227-228.
— Under the straight line me I hod.
21. Under the straight line method of determining depreciation, the
life of the unit is determined, and it is then assumed that during this
life the depreciation is uniform. It is also assumed that there will be no
interest accumulation. Hill et al v. Antigo Water Co., 1909, 3 R. C. 623,
643; State Journal Prtg. Co. et al. v. Madison Gas & El. Co., 1910, 4 R. G.
501, 604; City of Ripon v. Ripon Lt. & W. Co., 1910, 5 R. G. 1, 20;
Fullmer v. Wausau St. R. R. Co., 1910, 5 R. G. 114, 122; In re Fond du
du Lac Water Co., 1910, 5 R. G. 482, 502.
Differences between straight line method and sinking fund method
of determining depreciation.
22. Under the straight line method of determining depreciation, the
drop in value is the same each year during the entire life of the unit.
72 Depreciation. — Depreciation reserve charge
Under the sinking fund method the drop is Ught at first, while the amount
set aside is small but the drop in value increases as this amount grows
larger, and toward the end of the life period it rises quite rapidly. For
short life units the difTerence between the two methods is probably not
very material. For long life units, on the other hand, the difference may
be of importance. Hill et al. v. Antigo Water Co., 1909, 3 R. G. 623,
643-644.
Necessity for reserve charges.
23. To ward against depreciation not covered by current repairs
a depreciation reserve must be carried on the books of the company.
Wis. Statutes sec. 1797m-15. Another reason why this reserve is so
indispensable is that it equalizes depreciation charges. Knapp et al. v.
Matteson Tel. Co., 1912, 11 R. C. 180, 192; In re Appl. Merrill Ry. & Ltg.
Co., 1907, 2 R. C. 148, 154; In re Invest. Mosinee El. Lt. <Sc P. Co., 1914,
13 R. C. 712, 714; In re Invest. Ashland Water Co., 1914, 14 R. G. 1, 45.
Purpose of reserve.
24. The aim of the establishment of a depreciation resers'^e, in short, is
to keep the original investment intact. In re Appl. Cumberland Mun.
El. Ltg. Plant, 1909, 4 R. G. 214, 217; City of Whitewater v. Whitewater
El. Lt. Co., 1910, 6 R. G. 132, 135; In re Appl. Columbus W. & Lt. Comm.,
1913, 11 R. G. 449, 456; In re Appl. Fennimore Mun. W. & Lt. Plant,
1913, 12 R. G. 194, 209.
Total renewals should amount to total depreciation in long run.
25. In the long run the total renewals should amount to as much as
the total depreciation, but for any given period there may be wide differ-
ences between them. State Journal Prtg. Co. et al. v. Madison Gas <Sc El. Co.,
1910, 4 R. G. 501, 560.
IV. RATES OF DEPREGiATION.
In general.
26. It is probable that the fairest representation of the course of
depreciation is the sinking fund curve. Whether a 4 per cent, 3 per cent
or other curve is the closest to a fair and reasonable rate depends largely
upon other factors, which can perhaps be closely ascertained only by
careful investigations and clear knowledge of the surrounding conditions.
City ofBeloit v. Beloit W. G. iSc El. Co., 1911, 7 R. G. 187, 236.
27. As the rate of depreciation depends on the useful life of the prop-
erty, it can readily be determined when this life and cost of the property is
known. State Journal Prtg. Co. et al. v. Madison Gas & El. Co., 1910, 4
R. G. 501, 559.
Rate of depreciation of electric plant.
28. Depreciation computed at 2.5 per cent. In re Appl. Rhinelander
Power Co., 1915, 15 R. G. 783, 806.
29. Depreciation computed at a trifle less than 3 per cent. In re
Appl. Red Cedar Val. EL Co., 1911, 6 R. G. 717, 727.
Depreciation. — Rates of 73
30. Depreciation computed at 3.5 per cent. In re Appl. Mun. El.
Utility of Sun Prairie, 1914, 15 R. G. 189, 193.
31. Depreciation computed at 4 per cent. In re Invest. Mosinee
EL Lt. & P. Co., 1914, 13 R. C. 712, 716.
32. Depreciation computed at 4.5 per cent. Superior Comml. Club
et at. V. Superior W. Lt. & P. Co., 1912, 10 R. G. 704, 752; Kittleson et at. v.
Elroij Mun. W. cfc Lt. Plant, 1914, 14 R. G. 485, 491; City of Watertown v.
Watertown G. & El. Co., 1914, 14 R. G. 604, ai6.
33. Depreciation computed at 5 per cent. In re Appl. Merrill Ry.
Sz Ltg. Co., 1907, 2 R. G. 148, 158; In re Appl. Chippewa Vat. Ry. Lt. &
P. Co., 1908, 2 R. C. 311, 321; Dodgeville v. Dodgeville El. Lt. & P. Co.,
1908, 2 R. G. 392, 406-407; In re Appl. North Miliv. Lt. & P. Co., 1909,
4 R. G. 89, 96; In re Appl Jefferson Mun. El. Lt. & W. Plant, 1910,
5 R. G. 555, 560; City of Rhinelander v. Rhinelander Ltg. Co., 1912, 9 R. G.
406, 426; In re Appl. Columbus W. & Lt. Comin., 1913, 11 R. G. 449,
456, 475; In re Invest. Electric Rates in Oconto, 1913, 12 R. G. 584, 594-595;
In re Invest. Waterloo Mun. W. & El. Plant, 1914, 15 R. G. 534, 540.
Street lighting system'.
34. Depreciation computed at 4.5 per cent. City of Sheboygan v.
Sheboygan Ry. & El. Co., 1911, 6 R. G. 353, 365; In re Jt. Appl. Waupaca
El. Lt. & R. Co. and Waupaca, 1912, 8 R. G. 586, 601.
Rate of depreciation of gas plant.
35. Depreciation computed at 2 per cent. City of Racine v. Racine
Gas Lt. Co., 1911, 6 R. G. 228, 296; Meyer et al. v. Sheboygan G. Lt. Co.,
1912, 9 R. G. 439, 459; Superior Comml. Club et al. v. Superior W. Lt. Sz
P. Co., 1912, 10 R. G. 704, 752; City of Milw. v. Miliv. G. Lt. Co., 1913,
12 R. G. 441. 476; Yanko et al. v. Portage American Gas Co., 1913, 13 R. G.
136, 141.
36. The average life of a gas plant appears to be about thirty years.
Some parts of the plant last much longer than this, but there are other
parts, again, which have a shorter life. With a life of thirty years it is
evident that in order to accumulate a sum sufficient to replace the plant
at the end of its life, about 3^ per cent of its cost would have to be set
aside annually. If invested at compound interest until required, the
amount to be set aside could be reduced to a somewhat lower figure.
Depreciation computed at 3.5 per cent. In re Appl. Manitowoc Gas Co.,
1908, 3 R. G. 163. 170.
Rate of depreciation of paving constructed by street railway com-
pany.
37. The rate of depreciation allowed upon the paving constructed
by the company was computed upon the basis of the average life of
granite paving, brick, asphalt and creosote block paving and the final
average life of paving under Milwaukee conditions was placed at twelve
and one-half years where track renewals were the determining feature,
and the final average life of granite block was placed at twenty-one years.
In re Service of T. M. E. R. Jc L. Co. in Milwaukee, 1913, 13 R. G. 178, 234.
74 Depreciation. — Rates of
Rate of depreciation of street railway plant.
38. Depreciation computed at 4.32 per cent. In re Service of T. M.
E. R. & L. Co. in Milwaukee, 1913, 13 R.^ C. 178, 228.
39. Depreciation computed at 4.5 per cent. Superior Comml. Club
et aL V. Duluth Street Ry. Co., 1912, 11 R. C. 1, 19.
40. The rate of depreciation as estimated by the Commission ap-
proximates 5.35 per cent of the depreciable property for the entire plant.
Depreciation computed at 5.35 per cent. City of Milwaukee v. T. M.
E, R. 6c L. Co., 1912, 10 R. G. 1, 227.
Rate of depreciation of telephone plant.
41. Depreciation computed at 6.5 per cent. In re Appl. Wautoma
iSc ML Morris Farmers' Tel Co., 1911, 6 R. C. 419, 422; In re Appl.
Brooklyn Tel. Co., 1911, 6 R. C. 573, 576; In re Appl. Brodhead Tel. Co.,
1912, 9 R. C. 383, 385; In re Appl. Ashland Home Tel. Co., 1912, 9 R. C.
489, 496; In re Appl. East Fond du Lac Tel. Co., 1912, 11 R. C. 114, 116;
In re Appl. Random Lake Tel. Co., 1912, 11 R. C. 130, 131; Knapp et al.
V. Matteson Tel. Co., 1912, 11 R. C. 180, 188; In re Appl. People's Tel. Co.,
1913, 11 R. C. 499, 505; City of Merrill v. Wis. Tel. Co., 1913, 12 R. C.
490, 493; In re Proposed Exten. Ettrick Tel. Co., 1913, 12 R. G. 744, 747.
42. Depreciation computed at 7 per cent. In re Oregon Tel. Co.,
1909, 3 R. G. 534, 547; Columbus Adv. Assn. v. Wis. Tel. Co., 1910, 4
R. G. 414, 420; In re Appl. Ozaukee-Washington Tel. Co., 1911, 7 R. G.
428, 433; In re Appl. Pewaukee- Sussex Tel. Co., 1911, 7 R. G. 465, 470;
In re Appl. Rockland Tel. Co., 1913, 11 R. G. 402, 409; In re Appl. Clark
County Tel. Co., 1915, 15 R. G. 822, 827.
43. Depreciation computed at approximately 9 per cent. Payne
et al. V. Wis. Tel. Co., 1909, 4 R. G. 1, 10, 12; In re Appl. Mineral Point
Tel. Co., 1914, 15 R. G. 182, 184.
44. Depreciation computed at approximately 10 per cent. In re
Appl. Int'erurban Tel. Co., 1910, 6 R. G. 187, 190.
Rate of depreciation of toll bridge.
45. Depreciation computed at about 3 per cent. Marcus et al. v.
Postel & Swingle, 1913, 13 R. G. 47, 50.
Rate of depreciation of water plant.
46. Depreciation computed at 0.45 per cent. In re Purchase Oshkosh
W. Wks. Plant, 1913, 12 R. G. 602, 668.
47. Depreciation computed at 0.63 per cent. In re Purchase Antigo
W. Co.'s Plant, 1913, 13 R. G. 156, 162-163.
48. Depreciation computed at 0.7 per cent. In re Invest. Ashland
Water Co., 1914, 14 R. G. 1, 46.
49. Depreciation computed at 0.8 per cent. Superior Comml. Club
et al. v. Superior W. Lt. Sc P. Co., 1912, 10 R. G. 704, 752.
50. Depreciation computed at 1 per cent. In re Appl. Madison City
W. Wks., 1909, 3 R. G. 299, 303; In re Fond du Lac Water Co., 1910,
5 R. G. 482, 502; In re Manitowoc W. Wks. Co., 1911, 7 R. G. 71, 99;
In re Oconto W. Supply Co., 1911, 7 R. G. 497, 534; City of Janesville v.
Janesville W. Co., 1911, 7 R. G 628. 650; City of Marinette v. City W. Co.
Disadvantage 75
of Marinette, 1911, 8 R. C. 334, 364; City of Green Bay v. Green Bay W. Co.,
1913, 11 R. C. 236, 254; In re AppL Columbus W. <k Lt. Com., 1913,
11 R. C. 449, 475; In re Appl. Ft. Atkinson W. & Lt. Comm., 1913, 12 R. C.
260, 288; In re AppL City of Sparta, 1913, 12 R. C. 532, 542; Town of
Vaughn v. Hurley W. Co., 1914, 14 R. C. 291, 299; Kittleson et al. v. Elroy
Mun. W. & Lt. Plant, 1914, 14 R. C. 485, 491; In re Invest. Waterloo Mun.
W. Sc El. Plant, 1914, 15 R. C. 534, 540.
51. Depreciation computed at 1.5 per cent. In re Appl. Jefferson
Mun. EL LL & W. Plant, 1910, 5 R. C. 555, 560; City of Stevens Pt. v.
Stevens Pt. Water Co., 1911, 6 R. C. 458, 470; City of Beloit v. Beloit W. G.
& EL Co., 1911, 7 R. G. 187, 350; Rollins et aL v. Village of Montfort,
1913, 11 R. C. 278, 283; In re AppL City of Delavan, 1913, 12 R. C. 148,
153.
DERAILING SYSTEM.
Installation of derailing system for the protection of railroad by railroad
crossing, see Railroads, 58.
DESK TELEPHONES.
Charge for changing from wall to desk telephone, or vice versa, see
Rates — Telephone, 13.
DESTINATION SIGNS.
Destination signs to be displayed on street cars to improve service, see
Street Railways, 45.
DETENTION OF CARS.
As matter considered in determining reasonableness of rates, see Rates —
Railroad, 187.
DEVELOPMENT AND RETENTION OF BUSINESS.
As element considered in making rates for electric utilities, see Rates —
Electric, 43^4.
for water utilities, see Rates — Water, 49-52.
DEVELOPMENT COSTS.
As element in the valuation of public utilities, see Valuation, 42-55.
DIRECTORIES.
See Telephone Utilities, 1.
DISADVANTAGE.
See Discrimination.
76 Discounts
DISCOUNTS.
Discounts on bonds as element in the valuation of public utilities, see
Valuation, 82-84.
Discrimination due to discount provisions in utility rate schedule, see Dis-
crimination, 14. 29, 34.
Regulations as to payment of rates for services rendered by public utility,
provision for discounts, see Rules ANp Regulations, 14-19.
DISCRIMINATION.
I. IN GENERAL.
II. AS BETWEEN COMMODITIES.
III. AS BETWEEN CONSUMERS.
a. Electric rates. c. Water mains.
b. Gas rates. d. Water rates.
IV. AS BETWEEN CONSUMERS AND TAXPAYERS.
a. Municipal utility rates.
V. AS BETWEEN CUSTOMERS.
VI. AS BETWEEN DEALERS.
a. Grain elevators.
VII. AS BETWEEN LOCALITIES.
VIII. AS BETWEEN PASSENGERS.
IX. AS BETWEEN PRIVATE CARS.
X. AS BETWEEN SHIPPERS.
XL AS BETWEEN STATIONS,
a. Car service.
XII. AS BETWEEN SUBSCRIBERS.
a. Telephone rates. b. Telephone service.
XIII. AS BETWEEN TRANSFER COMPANIES.
I. IN GENERAL.
Difficulty in proving discrimination.
1. Shippers who may desire to ascertain the situation they are in
with respect to rates, often find it very difTicult to obtain much if any light
from the tariffs alone. Many instances are therefore met with where
shippers are unable to show disadvantages against them in freight rates,
although such disadvantages may actually exist. Wisconsin Box Co.
et al. V. C. M. & St. P. R. Co. et al., 1909, 3 R. C. 605, 612.
Discrimination not necessarily unlawful.
2. It is not every prejudice or disadvantage to which a person may
be subjected by a railway company, either in the facilities furnished or
charges exacted for transportation services, that is prohibited by the
statute, but only those that are "undue or unreasonable." Lieberman v.
C. M. iSc St. P. R. Co., 1909, 3 R. C. 330, 331.
The fact that discrimination is unintentional is immaterial.
3. The fact that inequalities in rates may be unintentional and that
they may have crept into the schedules by mere chance, does not in any
sense justify their continuance. In re Rates on Milk and Cream, 1908,
2 R. G. 450, 458-459.
Discrimination.- — As between consumers 77
What constitutes discrimination.
4. The fact that the differences between the rates under two methods
of shipment are greater than they should be may alone constitute dis-
crimination. Cochrane Co. v. C. M. cfc St. P. R. Co., 1908, 3 R. C. 1, 21.
5. A schedule of rates so arranged as to quantity steps and discount
provisions as to make possible a larger bill to one consumer than the bill
against another whose consumption may be even greater, is inequitable
and discriminatory. City of Ripon v. Ripon Lt. Sc Water Co., 1910, 5 R. G.
1,28.
II. AS BETWEEN COMMODITIES.
Discrimination as between commodities.
6. The price of butter is more than double the price of whey butter,
and it appears to us that like treatment in the classification and the rate
of whey butter and of creamery butter is a discrimination against whey
butter. So. Wis. CheesemerCs Protective Ass^n. v. Ry. Cos., 1906, 1 R. C.
143, 165.
III. AS BETWEEN CONSUMERS.
a. ELECTRIC RATES.
Discrimination as between consumers using electricity exclusively
and those using other methods of lighting or power.
7. Discriminations arise from the preference given by the company
to consumers using electricity exclusively, as against consumers using
other methods of lighting or power. In re Invest. Chippewa Val. Ry. Lt.
& P. Co., 1912, 10 R. C. 692, 694-695.
Discrimination between different classes of consumers.
8. There are, no doubt, instances where customers cannot be had at
the regular rates, and where it might be good business for the plant and
to the best interest of the rest of the consumers to make some concession
in the rates, at least for a limited period. To put a rate schedule into effect
for permanent use, which is so low as to hardly cover the output costs, or
that yields so little in the way of revenues as to leave little or nothing for
interest, depreciation and taxes, would seem to be o\xX of line with sound
business practice, and discriminatory as against other customers. In re
Men. cfc Mar. Lt. & Tr. Co., 1909, 3 R. C. 778, 898; City of Ripon v. Ripon
Lt. & W. Co., 1910, 5. R. C. 1, 45.
9. As short hour customers make a much smaller use of the plant
and equipment that has been provided and is maintained for them than
long hour customers, it also of necessity follows that the former are rela-
tively more costly to the plant. Such differences in the cost should be
made up by corresponding differences in the rates. Harrington et at. v.
T. M. E. R. & L. Co., 1910, 6 R. C. 64, '68.
78 Discrimination. — As between consumers
a. ELECTRIC RATES. — Continued.
Discrimination. — Due to assessing the demand on the monthly basis
instead of the maximum demand for the year.
10. Where the intent of the schedule is to base the demand on the
maximum demand for the year, the practice of assessing it on the monthly
basis results in discrimination. In re Invest. T. M. E. R. & L. Co. et al.,
1912. 9 R. C. 541, 562-563, 570.
Charging dissimilar rates for similar service.
11. Under the existing rates, the charge for residence lighting is
16 cts. per kw-hr., for some business places 10 cts. per kw-hr. and for
other business places 10 cts. per kw-hr. with the discounts dependent
upon the quantity of current consumed. This practice, which is unjustly
discriminatory, will be remedied by the new rates. Jones et at. v. Berlin
Public Service Co., 1914, 15 R. C. 121, 135.
Cumulative billing.
12. The practice of billing separate premises belonging to a single
owner under a single bill usually results in unjust discriminations. When
( contrary to the provisions in the rate schedules and rules it is also unlaw-
ful. In re Invest. T. M. E. R. & L. Co. et al., 1912, 9 R. C. 541, 563, 575.
Different rates on account of ownership of instrument or
facility by consumer.
13. It is the duty of the utility to furnish meters, and no distinction,
as far as rates or minimum charges are concerned, can be made between
consumers who own their meters and those whose meters are owned by
the utihty. In re Appl. Bruce Water <Sc Lt. Comm., 1912, 9 R. C. 474, 476;
In re Appl. Ft. Atkinson W. & Lt. Comm., 1913, 12 R. C. 260, 303; In re
Appl. Neshkoro Lt. <Sc P. Co., 1913, 13 R. C. 52, 54.
Discount provisions.
14. A schedule of rates so arranged as to quantity steps and discount
provisions as to make possible a larger bill to one consumer of electric cur-
rent than the bill against another whose consumption may be even greater,
is inequitable and discriminatory. Citu of Ripon v. Ripon Lt. & W. Co.,
1910, 5 R. C. 1, 28; Ross et at. v. Burkhardt Millg. & El. P. Co., 1910,
. 5 R. C. 139, 162; Citij of Manitowoc v. Manitowoc El. Lt. Co., 1910, 5 R. G.
360, 383.
Failure to base rates on cost.
15. Generally speaking, the rates should, as far as practicable, be
based upon cost. Short hour users are more costly to the plant than long
hour users, and consequently should pay higher rates. Unless the rates
charged in each case bear a rather close relation to the cost, there is apt
to be discrimination as between customers. Dodgeville v. Dodgeville El. Lt.
Sc P. Co., 1908, 2 R. G. 392, 412.
Flat rates.
16. That flat rates ordinarily lead to unjust distribution of the oper-
ating burden has been found repeatedly. It is hardly necessary to demon-
Discrimination. — As between consumers 79
strate the need of abandoning such rates when the utility is ready to
eliminate them. In re Appl. Evansville Mun. EL Lt. Sc W. Plant, 1912,
11 R. C. 197, 206; In re Appl. Village of Withee, 1914, 13 R. G. 704, 709.
Flat and meter rates.
17. A rate of 10 cts. per kw-hr. to some consumers, and another rate
of 50 cts. per month for each 16 c. p. lamp for the lamps actually burned
and when no consideration is given either to the number of lamps installed
or to the length of time the lamps were used, to other consumers, is cer-
tainly likely to be discriminatory. In re Appl. Fox River Millg. Sc P. Co.,
1907, 2 R. C. 135, 138.
Furnishing fixtures, etc., at or below cost in order to secure
consumers.
18. The costs for fixtures depend on different causes and units than
the other costs of service. They cannot often be equitably distributed
among the consumers unless they are paid for directly. Therefore, the
practice of furnishing fixtures and other items at or below cost in order to
secure customers results in unjust discrimination. 7^ re Invest. T. M. E.
R. iSc L. Co. et al, 1912, 9 R. G. 541, 563-564.
Granting of refund from rates on file with the Commission.
19. Any agreement to make a refund of any part of the rates or
charges in the schedules on file with the Commission is a violation of
sees. 1797/n--33 and 1797/n-92, of the Public Utilities Law. Douglass et
al. V. Equitable EL Lt. Co^ 1913, 12 R. G. 337, 354.
Meter rental paid to utility by consumer.
20. The proposed schedule seeks to assess a minimum bill to lighting
consumers of 50 cts. per month, of which 25 cts. is the meter rental. In
effect this is a discrimination between consumers who own their meters
and those who are supplied with meters by the utility. In re Appl.
Bloomer EL Lt. Plant, 1911, 6 R. G. 506, 514.
Preferential rate to employes of utility.
21. Although the Commission has no present knowledge of the prac-
tice now followed by the company in charging its employes for electric
service, there is found in the schedule on file with the Commission the
following preferential rate: Employes of company, 50 per cent of regular
meter rate. The granting of such rates is in violation of the Public Utili-
ties Law and the practice should be discontinued at once if it is being in-
dulged in by the company. Jones et al. v. Berlin Public Service Co., 1914,
15 R. C. 121, 135.
Rate wars.
22. That the law covers such injuries to business and public interests
as those caused by rate wars, seems clear, not only from its provisions,
but from the circumstances under which these provisions were enacted.
Kenosha EL Rij. Co. v. Kenosha G. Sc EL Co., 1911, 8 R. C. 119, 120-121.
80 Discrimination. — As between consumers
a. ELECTRIC RATES— Continued.
Discrimination due to assessing the demand on the monthly
basis instead of the maximum demand for the year —
Substitution of power rates for lighting rates properly appli-
cable under the schedule.
23. The practice of substituting power rates for lighting rates prop-
erly applicable under the schedule results in unjust discrimination. In re
Invest. T. M. E. R. Sc L. Co. et al., 1912, 9 R. G. 541, 547-550.
r
Unlimited use under maximum charge.
24. The commercial power schedule shows a possibility of unlimited
use by power users at a certain maximum price per horse power, which
tends toward an unjust discrimination against small users. In re Service
and Rates Stevens Pt. Ltg. Co., 1914, 14 R. G. 350, 357.
Discrimination possible under straight meter rates.
25. Where there are considerable variations as between the custom-
ers in the demand and the length of time the current is used, a uniform
rate is likely to be discriminatory. Where, on the other hand, there are
comparatively small variations as between customers on the demand and
in the hours of daily use of the current, a uniform rate may not be unfair.
In re Appl. Darlington El. Lt. 6c W. P. Co., 1910, 5 R. G. 397, 415; In re
Appl. Red Cedar Val. EL Co., 1911, 6 R. G. 717, 736; In re Appl. Neshkoro
Lt. Sc P. Co., 1913, 13 R. G. 52, 54; In re Service and Rates Stevens Pt.
Ltg. Co., 1914, 14 R. G. 350, 369.
Necessity of reading meters regularly in order to avoid discrimi-
nation.
26. There will, of course, be instances where it is impracticable to
read a meter but it is important that readings be taken and bills delivered
each month, wherever practicable, in order to avoid discrimination and to
afford a means of detecting any defective meter or unusal condition of
consumption. In re Appl. Gilmanton Mill Sc El. Plant, 1914, 14 R. G.
152, 153.
Requirement that outside consumers of a municipal utility fur-
nish part of facilities. '
27. In the absence of an order of the Gommission to the contrary
the city may require remote consumers or consumers without the city, as a
condition to receiving service where the cost of service may be relatively
great, to furnish part of the service equipment. In re Appl. Ft. Atkinson
W. Sc Lt. Comm., 1913, 12 R. G. 260, 270.
b. GAS RATES.
Discrimination due to absence of minimum charge.
28. Where no minimum charge is made, the company is compelled
to carry considerable dead investment and to incur other expenses for
those consumers who pay nothing or very little to the company. In re
Appl. Green Bay Gas Sc El. Co., 1910, 5 R. G. 101, 105.
Discrimination. — As between consumers 81
Discount provisions.
29. A schedule of rates so arranged as to quantity steps and discount
provisions as to make possible a larger bill to one consumer of gas than
the bill against another whose consumption may be even greater, is in-
equitable and discriminatory. City of Ripon v. Ripon Lt. Sc W. Co., 1910,
5 R. G. 1, 56.
c. WATER MAINS.
Extension of — Dissimilarity in treatment of individuals.
30. In the matter of extending the mains of a water system, uniform
regulations should be enforced. The persons desiring extensions should
be subjected to like terms and conditions. Beloit W. G. Sc El. Co. v. City
of Beloit, 1912, 9 R. C. 250, 260.
d. WATER RATES.
Discrimination between different classes of consumers.
31. Where the number of hydrants and character of fire protection
demanded by the municipality is such that it occasions 65.22 per cent of
the water utility investment and 47 per cent of the operating expenses,
but pays rates which yield only 38 per cent of the water utility revenue,
the schedule is discriminatory as against private consumers and an in-
crease in hydrant rental and a corresponding reduction in the commercial
rates must be made. Citij of Ripon v. Ripon Lt. Sc W. Co., 1910, 5 R. G.
1, 68, 77.
Discrimination due to charging lower rate for similar or larger
installations.
32. Gonsumers not infrequently increase their fixtures or build addi-
tions to their houses without notifying the water company, so that dis-
criminations in rates inevitably occur without the knowledge of the water
company. City of Stevens Pt. v. Stevens Pt. W. Co., 1911, 6 R. G. 458, 467.
Charging similar rates for dissimilar service.
33. A flat rate which, with certain exceptions, is the same to all con-
sumers irrespective of the amount of water consumed, the purposes for
which it is used, or the fixtures in use is unjustly discriminatory. Kirivin
et at. V. City of Darlington, 1910, 6 R. G. 26.
Discount provisions.
34. A schedule of rates so arranged as to quantity steps and discount
provisions as to make possible a larger bill to one consumer of water than
the bill against another whose consumption may be even greater, is in-
equitable and discriminatory. City of Ripon v. Ripon Lt. & W. Co.,
1910, 5 R. G. 1, 84.
Failure to enforce rate schedule impartially.
35. Failure to enforce a rate schedule impartially results in unjust
discriminations. Fitzgerald et at. v. City of Tomahawk, 1911, 8 R. G. 40.
50, 56-57; Kirwin et at. v. City of Darlington, 1910, 6 R. G. 26.
82 Discrimination. — As between consumers
d. WATER RATES. — Continued.
Discrimination due to charging lower rate for similar or larger
installations — Free or reduced rate service. /
36. The practice of furnishing free or reduced rate service is pro-
hibited by law. It is as indefensible in ethics as it is unlawful. Dick
et al. V. Madison Water Comm., 1910, 5 R. C. 731, 790, 791; Kirwin et al v.
City of Darlington, 1910, 6 R. G. 26, 28-29. Fitzgerald et al. v. City of
Tomahawk, 1911, 8 R. G. 40; In re AppL City of Delavan, 1913, 12 R. G.
148, 162.
Increased rates for consumers on new extensions.
37. When the consumers on a new extension are so numerous as to
make it reasonably compensatory, any extra charges or any charge above
the regular schedule rates applying to all consumers in the same class would
appear to be unjust and discriminatory. Beloit Water G. Sc El. Co. v.
City of Beloit, 1910, 5 R. G. 617, 623.
Meter rental paid to utility by consumer.
38. The granting of lower rates to consumers who own their meter
than to those who do not, discriminates between consumers and is unlawful.
(Wis. Statutes sec. 1797/n-90.) West et al. v. City of Eau Claire, 1912, 9
R. G. 134, 137, 153; In re Appl. City of Neenah, 1912, 11 R. G. 119, 128;
In re Appl. Ft. Atkinson W. Sz Lt. Comm., 1913, 12 R. G. 260, 313; In re
Invest. Ashland Water Co., 1914, 14 R. G. 1, 68.
Minimum charge fixed without regard to size of meter.
39. A minimum bill which is the same, regardless of the size of
meter, would ignore the fact that the investment is large or small accord-
ing to the size of the meter, or if made an average amount would dis-
criminate against the consumers who use the small sizes. City of Ripon v.
Ripon Lt. <k W. Co., 1910, 5 R. G. 1, 84; In re Appl. Fennimore Mun. W.
& Lt. Plant, 1913, 12 R. G. 194, 205; Hughes et al. v. Watertown W. Wks.,
J914, 14 R. G. 669, 680.
Paying excessive meter rental to consumers.
40. In case of lease of meters by a water utility, the rental paid to the
consumer must be a reasonable rental, and subterfuges in the form of
excessive rentals are unjust discriminations, punishable by law. In re
Invest. Hudson W. Wks., 1908, 3 R. G. 138, 141-142.
Preferential rates.
41. Under the provisions of the law no utihty should make or give
any undue preference or advantage to any particular consumer or subject
any consumer to any disadvantage in any respect, by means of a less rate
than that named in the pubhshed schedule (sec. 1797/n-33). Hughes et al.
V. Watertown W. Wks. 1914, 14 R. G. 669, 681.
Discrimination in favor of consumers as against taxpayers.
42. Where all the expenses of operation and fixed charges are not
borne by the revenues of the plant but are helped out by taxation, as is
frequently the case with municipally owned plants, it is not equitable to
Discrimination. — As between customers 83
the property owners that one should be required to help maintain the
plant so that another enjoys the use of the commodities. Superior
Comml. Club et al. v. Superior W. Li. & P. Co., 1912, 10 R. G. 704, 780.
Discrimination possible under flat rates.
43. It is a well understood fact that flat rates universally result in
excessive and wasteful consumption, and in unjust discriminations in
diverse forms, and in irritation and ill-feeling among the consumers as to
a schedule of rates, which at best is uncertain and guess work. City of
Washburn v. Washburn W. Wks. Co., 1910, 6 R. G. 74, 92.
Reduced rates for large consumers.
44. It may sometimes be the case that certain large consumers may
be given a lower rate, due to the fact that less cost is incurred in supplying
such consumers. It may be stated, however, that such reductions in
rates should be given only upon careful consideration and with the clear
knowledge that such reductions will not compel other and smaller consum-
ers to bear more than their proper share of the expenses, otherwise dis-
crimination must follow such reductions. In re Appl. Jefferson Mun.
El. Lt. & W. Plant, 1910, 5 R. C. 555, 585.
IV. AS BETWEEN GONSUMERS AND TAXPAYERS.
a. MUNICIPAL UTILITY RATES.
Elimination of fixed charges as element in making rates for mu-
nicipal utilities.
45. If such items as interest, depreciation and taxes are not considered
by municipal plants in fixing rates for private consumers, it would seem
that these consumers would be favored as against the taxpayers. In re
Appl. Village of Arcadia, 1912, 11 R. G. 216, 218-219; In re Appl. Ft.
Atkinson W. Sc Lt. Comm., 1913, 12 R. G. 260, 285; In re Appl. Fennimore
Mun. W. Sc Lt. Plant, 1913, 12 R. G. 194, 209.
Inclusion of sinking fund charge for retiring bonds as an element
in making rates for municipal utilities.
46. The practice of charging annually to operating expenses the
amount used for the retiring of bonds would appear to result in a dis-
crimination against present consumers if they are at the same time re-
quired to pay interest on the full value of the property. The retirement
of bonds results in the municipality acquiring a valuable property unen-
cumbered by indebtedness, and it seems just that the taxpayers should
pay the cost thus incurred. In re Appl. Ft. Atkinson W. Sc Lt. Comm.,
1913, 12 R. G. 260, 286.
V. AS BETWEEN GUSTOMERS.
Express delivery limits.
47. In fixing express delivery limits, care must be taken that no undue
or unjust discrimination between customers shall result as a consequence
thereof. In our judgment arbitrary limits within municipalities cannot
84 Discrimination. — As between customers
be established for such purpose without subjecting those residing within,
the boundaries of the municipality but outside of such limits to an unjust
disadvantage or prejudice. Strauss v. American Express Co. et a/., 1909,
3 R. C. 556, 569; Heineman Lbr. Co. v. Wells Fargo Express Co., 1914,
13 R. G. 594, 596.
VI. AS BETWEEN DEALERS.
a. GRAIN ELEVATORS.
Leasing of elevator to favored shipper or dealer.
48. The leasing of the elevator property controlled by the railroad
company, taken in connection with the subsequent use to which the prop-
erties were put after the lease was made, was an unjust and unlawful
discrimination against the grain dealers in Superior who had formerly
been supplied with elevator privileges at that place and who have been
obliged to discontinue business because such facilities were withdrawn.
Superior Bd. of Trade v. G.N. R. Co. et al, 1907, 1 R. G. 619, 654.
VIL AS BETWEEN LOGALITIES.
Commutation rates.
49. While the establishment of commutation rates is .a matter of
managerial policy of the company, and the company may accord such
privilege to such localities as it may deem best, and in granting it to one
locality and denying it to another the company may be acting within its
lawful right, so long as no discrimination is practiced between individuals.
Yet it does not follow that in all cases discriminations between communities
in the matter of commutation rates can be justified under the statute.
Lieberman v. C. M. & St. P. R. Co., 1909, 3 R. G. 330, 334-335.
Excursion train service.
50. The failure of the respondent to stop its Sunday excursion train
at Winnibijou, while making stops at other stations of equal or less import-
ance, is unjustly discriminatory. Hughson v. D. S. S. <Sz A. R. Co., 1913,
13 R. G. 406, 408.
Requirement as to equality.
51. The principle of equality would seem to demand that local dis-
criminations should be justified by and correspond to different local con-
ditions, but should not be based upon distinctions discountenanced by the
constitution or by the policy of the law. Lieberman v. C. M. Sz St. P. R.
Co., 1909, 3 R. G. 330, 331-332.
Stopping of trains.
52. The fact that certain trains stop at stations of equal or less im-
portance than a station at which they do not stop, may be regarded as a
discrimination but if the latter already has reasonably adequate service
and the stopping of trains at the former is done solely because of the
company's reluctance to discontinue service to which its patrons have
become accustomed from long usage, the practice will not be regarded as
Discrimination. — As between passengers 85
unjustly discriminatory. Anderfon et al. v. M. St. P. cfc -S. S. M. R. Co.,
1914, 14 R. C. 247, 248-250.
VIII. AS BETWEEN PASSENGERS.
Commutation rates.
53. If a company voluntarily establishes a commutation rate between
any points on its road, it must be accorded under the same circumstances
and upon the same conditions to all alike who may desire to avail them-
selves of it. Lieberman if. C. M. <Sc St. P. R. Co., 1909, 3 R. G. 330, 334.
Commutation tickets.
54. To afford convenient facilities for acquiring tickets at reduced
rates to persons who reside near certain stations or stopping points, and
to deny such facilities to others who reside in the vicinity of other stopping
points, results in subjecting the latter persons to an undue disadvantage.
City of Depere v. Green Bay Tr. Co., 1910, 5 R. G. 604, 614.
Interurban rates — Reduced rates for competitive points.
55. It is a general practice with steam and interurban electric roads
to use the shorter mileage so as to meet the competition of the road having
the shorter route, and there is no objection to this being done in the in-
stant case, as the respondent is thus enabled to obtain a fair share of the
available traffic whereby to increase its earnings and to give all of its
patrons a lower fare than could be charged if its traffic were limited to
strictly local business. Chromaster v. M. N. Ry. Co., 1912, 8 R. C. 734,
746-747.
Interurban zone system rates.
56. It is not practical in street car operation to make rates on a mile-
age basis, and the ordinances under which the street car lines in the city
of Milwaukee are being operated, recognize this fact and establish the
zone system. Gillett v. T. M. E. R. & L. Co. et al., 1907, 1 R. G. 689, 706-
707.
57. The zone system is the only practical system of rates on re-
spondent's interurban line. In respondent's present zone system there is a
marked uniformity of the length of zones, whereby the inequalities of
the zone system are reduced to a minimum. Lamb v. Eastern Wis. Ry. cfc
Lt. Co., 1911, 6 R. G. 473, 495-496.
58. The varying zone lengths are discriminatory not only to the peti-
tioner but to other patrons of the road and they should be revised and
placed on a basis equitable to all. Vosburg v. Wis. El. Ry. Co., 1912, 8
R. G. 709, 717. ,
59. The so-called five-cent zone system of suburban and interurban
rates, in use on many interurban electric railways, is unscientific and in-
equitable because of the unequal zone distances used, the concessions made
to favored localities and favored classes of passengers at the expense of
other localities and other classes of passengers, and the consequent shifting
of costs, in the form of excessive rates, onto patrons in the localities or
classes discriminated against. In re Milw. Suburban & Interurban Ry.
Rates, 1914, 13 R. G. 475, 482-484.
86 Discrimination. — As between passengers
Lo"vr fares fixed by agreements or francliises.
60. Under the law bearing upon the discrimination it would seem that
those agreements or franchises estabUshing unusually low fares should be
void in the same manner as those establishing high fares in favor of the
company. The law should be applied both ways. One group of patrons
should not have the right for a fixed term of years to receive services at
the expense of another group or groups, but the spirit of the law seems to
demand that equality be reestablished whenever changing conditions
bring about inequality. In re Milwaukee Suburban 8c Inter urban Ry.
Rates, 1914, 15 R. G. 330, 351.
Service arrangement for convenience of one class of patrons.
61. It is the duty of the street railway company to render adequate
service to the full extent of its undertaking, even though such service is
not remunerative, so long as the respondent assumes to operate under the
permissive ordinance. Jones v. Wis. Ry. Lt. Sc P. Co., 1914, 14 R. C. 518,
523.
Stopping of trains.
62. To permit an agent of the company to determine, in his discretion,
the exigency requiring a stop in any particular case, seems indefensible.
The matter should not be left to the judgment of any one or more persons
but should be governed by a regulation of general application, otherwise
unjust discrimination will of necessity occur. Laun v. C. M. Sc St. P. R.
Co., 1910, 6 R. C. 5, 11.
63. Petitioner is not discriminated against by the fact that limited
trains do not stop at Mequon, and all other stations between that point
and Milwaukee. Limited trains for through passengers are essential to
efficiency of service on long haul traffic, for if they should stop at every
station on the line their usefulness would be impaired and no advantage
whatever would accrue in the establishment of such class of service.
Chromaster v. M. N. Ry. Co., 1912, 8 R. C. 734.
Street railway tickets including skating privileges.
64. By issuing street railway tickets which include skating at the
company's paviUon, the street railway company in reality pays a rebate
of 5 cts. per ticket to each holder thereof, assuming 5 cts. to be the custom-
ary charge for the privilege of skating. The inclusion of the skating
privilege when passengers are destined to the pavilion is, in effect, an
unjust discrimination against all passengers riding on this class of tickets
between any other two points. Fullmer v. Wausau Street R. Co., 1909,
3 R. C. 520, 530-531.
IX. AS BETWEEN PRIVATE CARS.
Discrimination in hauling private cars.
65. It does not appear that the practice or custom of hauling private
cars has the force of law, and as previously stated, we believe that the
railway company is correct in its contention that it is not a common car-
Discrimination. — As between shippers 87
rier of this class of cars and that it has a right to carry or to refuse to carry
the cars of one or more of all classes of private cars, provided that no dis-
crimination is made among individuals of the same class. Hall v. C. M.
& St. P. R. Co., 1906, 1 R. C. 118, 121-123.
X. AS BETWEEN SHIPPERS.
Car service — Distribution of foreign cars.
66. Permitting shippers to draw upon general railway equipment is
not in accordance with good practice as sanctioned by legal authority.
In times of car shortage the prorating of cars among shippers must in-
clude private cars as well as cars of foreign lines consigned directly to
shippers. It is true that private car companies have more or less control
over their equipment because of contractual relations with shippers, yet,
when it comes to dealing with system cars and foreign cars the company
on whose lines the freight originates should have control as far as possible
of the distribution of these cars in order to prevent discrimination between
shippers. Colfax Produce Co. v. M. St. P. Sc S. S. M. R. Co.y 1914, 14 R. G.
86, 90, 91.
Preference in furnishing cars.
67. In prorating cars among shippers at a station in times of car short-
age consideration must be given to the volume of business done by each
shipper, the character of the commodities to be shipped, the necessity for
the immediate movement of certain commodities, the climate and char-
acter of the weather and perhaps other facts. There is no hard and fast
rule by which the matter can be determined. . All that the law requires is
that the carrier act justly and fairly in distributing its cars. Colfax Pro-
duce Co. V. M. St. P. & S. S. M. R. Co., 914, 14 R. C. 86, 91.
Carload minima — Preference in distribution of various sized cars.
68. Variations in the cubic space capacity of cars taking the same
minimum weights must result in discrimination between shipments of
any commodity that requires the maximum amount of space in order to
load to minimum weight. Barker-Stewart Lbr. Co. v. C. M. & St. P. R.
Co., 1913, 11 R. G. 537, 545; Standard Lime & Stone Co. v. C. M. <Sc St.
P. R. Co. et al., 1912, 9 R. G. 228, 237.
Commodity rates.
69. The maintenance of differing schedules of rates by carriers of the
same commodity does not necessarily involve unjust discrimination.
Barker-Stewart Lbr. Co. et al. v. C. M. & St. P. R. Co., 1915, 15 R. G.
615, 647.
Competitive conditions.
70. Where there is more or less free and open competition in the
market for any given commodity, the margin of profits for those who deal
in it is likely to be comparatively small. In such cases even small differ-
ences in the rates of transportation would be of the greatest importance.
In the grain market, for instance, it would not be surprising if a difference
HH Discrimination. — As between shippers
in these rates of a fraction of a cent per bushel would be sufficient to keep
dealers entirely out of the market. Duluth-Superior Millg. Co. et al. v.
N. P. R. Co., 1910, 5 R. C. 598, 602.
71. Under prevailing competitive condition the reduction in rates to
certain other mill points and not to the mills of the petitioner amounts to
an unjust discrimination. Rhinelander Paper Co. v. M. St. P. Sc S. S.
M. R. Co., 1911, 8 R. G. 105, 113-114.
Concentration rates.
72. While concentration rates, like any other rates, may work some
hardship on those who are so situated that they cannot re-ship the product
over the same line as that over which the raw material of these products
was shipped in, they are not unjustly discriminatory against those so
situated. Fergot v. C. & N. W. R. Co., 1909, 4 R. C. 248, 253-254.
Differences in rates not based on substantial differences in the
service.
73. Differences in freight rates that are not based on substantial
differences in the service are apt to be unjustly discriminatory. Duluth-
Superior Millg: Co. et al. v. N. P. R. Co., 1910, 5 R. C. 598, 602; Wachsmuth
Lbr. Co. V. Bayfield Transfer R. Co., 1914, 14 R. C. 253, 254, 260.
Facilities for shipping milk and cream.
74. Under the circumstances it seems unreasonable to require the
shippers at Calhoun to haul their milk to the station by 6:45 a. m. during
the winter months, if it is practicable to give them later service similar to
that accorded others shippers. Milw. Milk Sc C. Shippers of Calhoun v.
C. & N. W. R. Co., 1915, 15 R. C. 638, 640.
Failure to separate accounts of railroad and industrial corpora-
tion connected therewith.
75. The Marathon County Ry. Co. must be considered as a separate
and independent enterprise. This cannot be done if its earnings and ex-
penses are confused with the earnings and expenses of an industrial cor-
poration, even though the same persons practically own both. The law
demands an equality in the rates charged to different shippers. Streveler v.
Marathon County R. Co., 1907, 1 R. C. 831, 836.
Grain elevators — Leasing of elevators to favored shipper or dealer.
76. We cannot escape the conclusion, that the making of a lease of
an important facility in the transportation business, with the power on
the part of the lessee to deprive the public of the use of such facility,
amounts to giving such lessee "an undue and unreasonable preference or
advantage," within the meaning of sec. 1797-23 of the statutes which is
expressly forbidden thereby. Superior Board of Trade v. G. N. R. Co.
et al., 1907, 1 R. C. 619, 634.
Improper classification.
77. A car of berry boxes shipped between two given points yields
$33.73 more per car in revenue to the railway company than the same
Discrimination. — As between shippers 89
weight of fruit baskets shipped between the same points. This is a
discrimination against berry boxes for which no adequate defense can be
made. The entire matter of classiftcation and rates on different kinds
of fruit packages is in need of careful revision. Medford Fruit Pack-
age Co. V. W. C. R. Co., et al, 1906, 1 R. C. 44, 52.
Milling in transit privileges.
78. rf milling in transit privileges result in a relatively lower through
rate and if it is of some material advantage to the producers to shift a
part of the freight charges on the raw material to the finished product,
it is conceivable that the granting of such privileges to some and with-
holding them from others may result in unjust discrimination. In re
Rates on Pulp Wood, 1908, 2 R. C. 168, 222.
Operation of a spur track as a private highway.
79. The contract with the Upham Mfg. Co. for the operation of a
spur track is discriminatory under the laws of the state of Wisconsin;
and if it was the purpose of the Wis. Central Ry. Co. to operate said spur
track as a private highway, the contract in question was ultra vires.
Rib River Land Co. v. Upham Mfg. Co. et al., 1907, 1 R. C. 739, 751.
Proportional rates.
80. The proportional rate complained of is unjustly discrirhinatory,
having caused financial loss to the complainant and should be canceled.
Island Paper Co. v. W. C. R. Co., 1906, 1 R. C. 234, 242, 243, 246.
Switching rates.
81. Everybody similarly situated within the switching district
specified is entitled to the same rate. Morse v. C. M. & St. P. R. Co.,
1911, 6 R. C. 531, 532; Duluth-Superior Millg. Co. et al. v. N. P. R. Co.,
1910, 5 R. C. 598, 602-603; Stevens Lbr. Co. v. C. & N. W. R. Co. et al,
1913, 11 R. C. 476, 478-479; Milwaukee Structural Steel Co. v. C. M. &
St. P. R. Co., 1914, 13 R. C. 673, 674; Barkhausen Coal Sc Dock Co. et al.
V. G. B. & W. R. Co., 1914, 14 R. C. 172, 173, 174.
82. In view of the provisions of sec. 1797-22.2 of the statutes the
general state of industry in the Milwaukee Terminal District and other
facts brought out, the reduction in rates asked for in behalf of shippers
doing their own sjjotting and hauling cannot be granted for the reason
that it would not operate alike upon all shippers. In re C. M. & St. P.
Switching Rates in Milwaukee, 1914, 14 R. C. 261, 282.
Trainload rates.
83. Trainload rates are at best a form of discrimination in favor of
the large shipper and against the small shipper. Their use has often been
discouraged by this Commission. Heineman Lbr. Co. v. C. M. & St. P.
R. Co., 1912, 9 R. C. 281, 283; Nor. Hemlock Sc Hardw'd Mfrs. Assn. v.
C. & N. W. R. Co., 1913, 12 R. C. 241, 245; Connor Lbr. & Land Co. v,
Laona Sc N. R. Co. et al., 1913, 12 R. C. 761, 765.
90 Discrimination. — As between shippers
Weights.
84. The law does not permit charges to be based upon anything but
actual weights, and if an error in weighing occurs it must be corrected
and charges adjusted accordingly. Any other policy would manifestly
afford an opportunity for the indulgence of practices subversive of the
principal purpose of the statute which prohibits unjust discrimination.
Wheeler-Timlin Lbr. Co. v. C. M. & St. P. R. Co., 1910, 6 R. G. 434, 435.
XL AS BETWEEN STATIONS.
a. CAR SERVICE.
Preference in furnishing cars and equipment.
85. A railway company may not discriminate against any particular
station in the distribution of equipment, but must furnish each station
its equitable proportion of the available equipment. It is the extent of
the business ordinarily done on a particular line or at a particular station
which properly measures the carrier's obligation to furnish transportation.
(Aijers V. C. <Sc N. W. R. Co., 1888, 71 Wis. 372.) Colfax Produce Co. v.
M. St. P. & S. S. M. R. Co., 1914, 14 R. C. 86, 90.
XII. AS BETWEEN SUBSCRIBERS.
a. TELEPHONE RATES.
In general.
86. Telephone companies, like other public utilities, must furnish
reasonably adequate service at reasonable rates without unjust discrimi-
nation among their patrons. Connor et al. v. Marsh et al., 1911, 6 R. G.
589, 600.
Classification of subscribers.
87. A classification in telephone service must avoid unjust discrimi-
nations between subscribers. Olson et al. v. Wis, Tel. Co., 1909, 3 R. G.
440, 446; Davis et al. v. Wis. Tel. Co., 1909, 4 R. G. 370, 373.
DiflFerent rates for different classes of service,
88. The favor shown to residence subscribers may have had its origin
in a plan of calculated discrimination, attempted to be justified on the
grounds of value to the consumer. In that light, this disparity between
telephone rates is not necessarily an unjust discrimination, Payne et al.
V. Wis. Tel- Co., 1909, 4 R. G. 1, 57; /n re Appl: Pewaukee-Sussex Tel.
Co., 1911, 7 R. C. 465, 472.
Discrimination due to: — Combination business and residence rate.
89. The so-called combination business and residence rate should
not be enforced because of its discriminatory tendency. In re Appl.
Bloomer Tel. Co., 1909, 4 R. G. 259, 265; In re Appl. People's Tel. Co.,
1913, 11 R. G. 499, 506.
Discriminaiion. — As between subscribers 91
Different rates for stockholders and nonstockholders.
90. It is unlawful to exact a higher rate from subscribers who are not
stockholders, directors or officers than from subscribers who are stock-
holders, directors or officers (sec. 1797m-90). In re Free and Reduced Rate
Tel. Service, 1908, 2 R. C. 521, 544; In re Appl. Platteville, Rewey & Ellen-
boro Tel Co., 1911, 7 R. C. 608, 610; 1912, 10 R. G. 534, 540-541; Knapp
et al. V. Matteson Tel. Co., 1912, 11 R. G. 180, 192; In re Appl. Rockland
Tel. Co., 1913, 11 R. G. 402, 408; In re Appl. Muscoda Mut. Tel. Co.,
1913, 11 R. G. 666, 683; In re Appl. Beef River Val. Tel. Co., 1913, 12 R. G.
126; In re Appl. Ettrick Tel. Co., 1914, 14 R. G. 405-406; In re Appl.
Marquette Sc Adams County Tel. Co., 1914, 14 R. G. 750. 751.
Different rates on account of ownership of instrument or
facility.
91. A subscriber to a telephone company who owns his instrument
may lease such instrument to the company at a reasonable rental, but
from no viewpoint could an excessive rental be justified. Such a con-
struction of the law (Wis. Stat. 1797/n-90) would tend to reestablish the
systems of unjust discriminations. In re Invest. Badger Tel. Co., 1908,
3 R. G. 98, 104; In re Appl. Platteville, Rewey & Ellenboro Tel. Co., 1911,
7 R. G. 608, 611.
Dissimilar rates for similar service.
92. Any variation in the charge, assuming similar conditions, would
be unjust discrimination prohibited by law. Davis et al. v. Wis. Tel. Co.,
1909, 4 R. G. 370, 372-373.
Failure to keep party line full.
93. While we are unwilling to take the position that unless party
lines can always be kept filled to the exact number for which the rate is
established they must be forthwith abandoned as unjustly discrimi-
natory, we are nevertheless of the opinion that, unleSiS under the par-
ticular circumstances in each case the company can obtain and retain
the customary number of subscribers on a line under normal conditions,
the service becomes unjustly discriminatory. In re Appl. La Crosse Tel.
Co., 1908, 2 R. G. 546, 548; Columbus Adv. Assn. v. Wis. Tel. Co., 1910,
4 R. G. 414, 425; In re Appl. Interurban Tel. Co., 1911, 6 R. G. 647, 648.
Granting rebates for repairs and equipment rentals.
94. The Gommission has determined that a telephone company may
have subscribers who own their equipment and pay them a reasonable
rental therefor, but rebates in the form of repairs or equipment rentals
are unlawful. In re Badger Tel. Co., 1908, 3 R. G. 98, 112; Knapp et al.
V. Matteson Tel. Co., 1912, 11 R. G. 180, 184; In re Appl Mosinee Tel Co.,
1914, 14 R. G. 709, 710.
Number of calls.
95. It appears that the practice has been to make a charge of 10 cts.
per call between the hours of 10 p. m. and 7 a. m. with the exception of
certain subscribers, who make regular early morning calls to the depot.
92 Discriminaiion. — As between subscribers
and who are exempted because the charges otherwise would be excessive.
In order to avoid unjust discrimination it is ordered that all subscribers
are to have the privilege of making early morning calls to the depot with-
out extra charge. In re AppL Mosinee Tel. Co., 1914, 14 R. C. 709, 711,
712.
a. TELEPHONE RATES. — Continued.
Discrimination due to: — Time of payment of rates.
96. It is manifestly unfair to those subscribers who implicitly obey
the rules of the company by paying quarterly in advance, to allow others
to make payments at their leisure. In fact, this is an unjust discrimina-
tion by express terms of the statute, and is subject to heavy penalties.
In re AppL Pewaukee- Sussex Tel. Co., 1909, 3 R. G. 420, 421.
Private branch exchanges.
97. We are not convinced that a telephone company can bind itself
by contract to perform a service indirectly for the public, or any part
thereof, which will result in the public's being obliged to pay more for such
service than could be demanded if the company performed it directly and
entirely by means of its own facilities. If such practice were permitted, it
would open the door to discrimination, and thereby afford a means of
evading one of the most important provisions of the statute and render it
impotent to accomplish the purpose of its enactment. National Trav-
elers" Assn. of Amer. v. Wis. Tel. Co., 1910. 5 R. G. 678, 689-690; Gross et
al. V. Wis. Tel. Co., 1911, 6 R. G. 432.
Substantial differences in the service.
98. There is an interdependency of telephone subscribers which is
not found among the users of other public utility services, and con-
cessions in rates can often reasonably be made to certain kinds of sub-
scribers because of the value of connections therewith to other subscrib-
ers. This consideration works a substantial difference in circumstances
and conditions which justifies discrimination by the grading downward of
a limited class of users. Olson et al. v. Wis. Tel. Co., 1909, 3 R. G. 440,
449-450,
Switching rates.
99. There appear to be no conditions which make it proper for the
petitioner to perform switching service free for rural lines which have
other connections while those which have no other connections pay for
the service, since the nature of the service furnished by the petitioner
in the two cases is identical. Boscobel Tel. Co. v. Crawford Co. F. Mut.
Tel. Co., 1912, 11 R. G. 32, 37.
Toll rates.
100. The Ettrick Tel. Go. complains that it is unjustly discriminated
against by reason of the fact that its subscribers are compelled to pay a
toll charge of 15 cents per message for service over the La Grosse Tel. Go.'s.
line between Galesville and La Grosse while the Western Wisconsin Tel.
Display or Sign Lighting 93
Co. is allowed to offer unlimited service over this line to its subscribers
under a flat rate per year. Held: The rates complained of are not unjustly
discriminatory and the Ettrick Tel. Co. is not burdened unjustly because
of their existence. The complaint is dismissed. Ettrick Tel. Co. v.
Western Wis. Tel. Co. et ai, 1914, 14 R. C. 180, 185.
b. TELEPHONE SERVICE.
Extension of lines.
101. The fact that the persons to whom the respondent desires to
extend its service are shareholders, is immaterial, for service must be
rendered to shareholders upon the same terms and conditions as to other
subscribers. Tri-State Tel. & Teleg. Co. v. St. Croix F. M. Tel Co., 1913,
13 R. C. 437, 439.
Preference in calls as between city and rural subscribers.
102. In answering local and rural calls, the business should be handled
as far as practicable in the order in which the calls come in. Boscobel
Tel. Co. V. Crawford Co. F. Mut. Tel. Co. et ai, 1912, 11 R. C. 32, 34.
Refusal of service.
103. Past misconduct of a subscriber will not justify the refusal of
future service to him unless it has been habitual or so frequent and under
such circumstances that his assurance of reformation cannot be reasonably
relied upon as sincere. In re Invest. Pulaski Merchants' & Farmers*
Tel. Co., 1912, 10 R. C. 558, 562-563; In re Refusal Oconto Rural Tel. Co.
to Extend Service, 1914, 15 R. G. 277, 279.
Silent Number" telephones.
104. The maintenance of silent number service cannot be regarded
as an unjust discrimination on the part of the telephone company and
there is no other ground upon which the practice can be condemned.
In re Use of Silent Numbers by Wis. Tel. Co., 1914, 13 R. C. 587.
XIII. AS BETWEEN TRANSFER COMPANIES.
Conduct of railroad company toward transfer companies.
105. No partiality should be shown in giving or withholding necessary
information in the notification of arrivals or in the prompt delivery of
shipments. Cohn v. C Sc N. W. R. Co., 1912, 8 R. C. 569, 576.
DISK HARROWS.
Classification under agricultural implements, see Rates — Railroad, 200.
DISPLAY OR SIGN LIGHTING.
Rates for display or sign lighting, see Rates— Electric, 7.
94 Distance Relations
DISTANCE RELATIONS.
As matter considered in determining reasonableness of group rates, see
Rates — Railroad, 56-58.
DISTANCE TARIFF RATES.
See Rates — Railroad, 47.
DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM EXPENSES.
Apportionment of distribution system expenses in the determination of
unit costs for electric utilities, see Accounting, 16-17.
DISTURBANCE OF RATES.
Change of relation of rates to which business has been adjusted, see
Rates — Railroad, 54.
DIVER'S OUTFIT.
Article constituting personal baggage, see Carriers, 3.
DIVIDENDS.
Interest on bonds and dividends on stock of railroad company apportioned
between intrastate and interstate traffic on basis of miles of road,
see Accounting, 134.
DIVISION OF JOINT RATES.
See Rates — Railroad, 70-71; Railroad Commission, 128.
DIVISION OF TERRITORY.
Contract between two telephone companies dividing the territory in
which they render service is valid, if such division is not contrary
to public policy, see Telephone Utilities, 44.
DOCK.
Petition for use of a private commercial dock for pubUc use, dismissed,
see Station Facilities, 9.
DONATION OF LAND.
See Land.
Earnings 95
DOORS.
Establishment of joint rates on doors, see Rates — Railroad, 91.
DRAYAGE CHARGES.
Claim for drayage charges cannot be enforced in a reparation proceeding,
nor in any proceeding before the Commission, see Reparation,
121.
DREDGING.
Dredging of streams to facilitate operation of flood gates in water power
dams, see Navigable Waters, 3, 8.
DRIED BREWERS' GRAINS.
Reasonableness of rates on dried brewers' grains, see Rates — Railroad
230.
DUPLICATION OF EQUIPMENT.
Electric utilities, duplication of plants usually wasteful, see Electric
Utilities, 3.
Public Utilities Law, scope and purpose of law with respect to duphcation
of telephone lines within the same territory, see Public Utilities
Law, 6.
Telephone utiUties, duplication of equipment of established utility not
ordinarily the remedy for excessive rates or inadequate service,
see Telephone Utilities, 17.
duplication of equipment of established utility, when permitted, see
Telephone Utilities, 14-16.
duphcation of equipment of established utility without authority
from the Commission, illegal, see Telephone Utilities, 18-19.
EARNING VALUE.
Earning value as matter considered in the valuation of public utilities
see Valuation, 26.
EARNINGS.
Earnings from intrastate traffic as element considered in making railroad
rates, see Rates — Railroad, 143.
as matter considered in determining reasonableness of rates, see
Rates — Railroad, 185.
96 Earnings per Unit: of Traffic
EARNINGS PER UNIT OF TRAFFIC.
For high grade freight, see Rates — Railroad, 20.
For low grade freight, see Rates — Railroad, 21.
EASEMENTS.
Value claimed for easements over private right of way which subsequently
became public streets, see Valuation, 97.
ECONOMIES IN OPERATION.
As element considered in making rates for electric utility, see Rates —
Electric, 45-46.
EDGINGS.
Reasonableness of rates on edgings and other waste lumber products, see
Rates — Railroad, 295.
EGGS.
See also Butter and Eggs.
Regulations for labels on freight packages, see Labels, 1.
ELECTRIC RAILWAYS.
See Interurban Railways; Street Railways.
ELECTRIC RATES.
See Rates — Electric.
ELECTRIC SIGNALS.
Installation of electric signals, see Railroads, 20-23, 58.
ELECTRIC UTILITIES.
Certificate of public convenience and necessity, see Certificate of
Public Convenience and Necessity, 1-2.
Cost of service of electric utilities, determination of unit costs, see
Accounting, 8-34.,
Depreciation, rate of depreciation of electric plants, see Depreciation,
28-34.
Discrimination as between consumers of electric utility, see Discrimina-
tion, 7-27.
Minimum charges for electric utilities, see Minimum Charges, 1-7.
Electric Utilities. — Mun. acquisition — terms, etc. 97
ACCOUNTING.
See Accounting, 1-2, 8-34, 186.
I. CONTROL AND REGULATION IN GENERAL.
11. ESTABLISHMENT, CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE.
III. MUNICIPAL ACQUISITION.
a. Compensation for property, b. Power of municipality to acquire
public utility.
IV. OPERATION.
a. Conditions of operation. e. Requirements as to service and
b. Management. facilities.
c. Operating records. f. Standards of service.
d. Quality of service.
V. RIGHT OF WAY AND OTHER INTERESTS IN LAND.
I. CONTROL AND REGULATION IN GENERAL.
Ordinance affecting rates or service of public utility — Review by
Commission.
1. Sec. 1797/n-87 of the statutes was designed to give the Commission
the power to pass upon the reasonableness of any ordinance, contract or
resolution of a common council directly affecting the rates or service of
any public utility or indirectly tending to place an unnecessary burden
upon the utility which might result in embarrassing it in the performance
of its public function in the manner required by the Public Utilities Law.
In re AppL Madison G. dc El. Co., 1913, 11 R. C. 293, 302-303.
Ordinance requiring removal of poles and wires of electric utility —
Reasonableness of ordinance.
2. There appears to be no doubt that a municipality may not, in the
supposed exercise of the police power, pass a valid ordinance resting on
purely aesthetic considerations. Such grounds may be given weight, and
even much weight, but in themselves they are not sufficient. Wis. Tel.
Co. V. City of La Crosse, 1911, 7 R. C. 435, 444; In re Appl. Madison G. &
El. Co., 1913, 11 R. C. 293, 300.
II. ESTABLISHMENT, CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE.
Duplication of plants.
3. Duplication of plants is a waste of capital whenever the services
can be adequately furnished by one plant. In re Appl. La Crosse Gas Sc
El. Co.y 1907, 2 R. C. 3, 5.
III. MUNICIPAL ACQUISITION— TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF
SALE AND PURCHASE.
a. COMPENSATION FOR PROPERTY.
Compensation to be determined by the Commission.
4. Section 1797/n-82 of the Wisconsin Statutes provides that, in case
of the acquiring of a public utility by a municipfdity, the Railroad Com-
mission shall fix and determine just compensation to be paid for the tak-
98 Electric Utilities.— Mun. acquisition — terms, etc.
ing of the property of such utihty actually used and useful for the
convenience of the pubhc, and also the terms and conditions of sale and
purchase. In re Cashton Lt. Sc P. Co., 1908, 3 R. C. 67, 70.
a. COMPENSATION FOR PROPERTY. — Continued.
Compensation determined in particular cases.
5. Compensation determined by the Commission in the following
cases of municipal acquisition of electric utilities. In re Cashton Lt. &
P. Co., 1908, 3 R. C. 67; In re Kaukauna Lt. Sc P. Co., 1911, 8 R. C. 409;
In re Purchase Brodhead El. Lt. Plant, 1913, 12 R. C. 88; In re Appl.
Kaukauna G. El Lt. & P. Co., 1913, 12 R. C. 189; In re Purchase Manitowoc
El. Lt. Plant, 1914, 13 R. C. 452; In re Purchase of El. Plant by the Vill. of
Sharon, 1914, 15 R. C. 238; In re Purchase of Grand Rapids El. Co's
Plant, 1914, 15 R. C. 258; In re Purchase EL Plant of Prairie du Sac
Mill (Sc Lt. Co., 1914, 15 R. C. 360.
Diminution of value of remaining property.
6. The law imposes upon the municipality the obligation of purchasing
only such property of the public utility as is both actually used and
useful for the convenience of the public. Nevertheless, the fact that tjie
value of the remaining property will be lessened, because of the severance
and removal of the portion taken, may be taken into account and com-
pensated for in determining the just compensation which the Commission
provides shall be paid for the property actually taken. In re Cashton Lt.
& P. Co., 1908, 3 R. C. 67, 80-81.
Going value.
7. The element of going value, created by the investments made in
developing the business, and in addition to the cost of the physical struc-
ture, must be taken into consideration in fixing value for just compensation.
In re Cashton Lt. & P. Co., 1908, 3 R. C. 67, 85-86.
Good will.
8. No compensation is to be allowed for good will in determining
just compensation for the property of a public utihty which enjoys a
monopoly. In re Cashton Lt. <Sc P. Co., 1908, 3 R. C. 67, 84-85.
Indeterminate permit.
9. The moment the municipality exercises its option to purchase the
plant of a pubhc utility operating under an indeterminate permit, the life
of such permit is terminated, and henceforth the same possesses no more
value than a franchise for a definite term of years upon the expiration of
the term. In re Cashton Lt. Sc P. Co., 1908, 3 R. C. 67, 84.
Present value.
10. The claim that the original cost of certain units should be accepted
as the proper value in determining just compensation for the property of a
public utility, is without any reasonable basis for support, since present
value differs from original cost, in that all property, excepting land,
depreciates. In re Cashton Lt. <Sc P. Co., 1908, 3 R. C. 67, 78.
Electric Utilities. — Operatian 99
Units of plant as parts of a going concern.
11. In placing a value on the physical property of a public utility,
the units of a plant should not be valued as independent entities, but as
units of a going concern performing public utility service. In re Cashton
Lt. Sz P. Co., 1908, 3 R. C. 67. 78.
b. POWER OF MUNICIPALITY TO ACQUIRE PUBLIC UTILITY.
Action by municipal council — Regularity — Constitutionality.
12. The constitutionality of the proceedings was challenged because
the constitution prohibits a municipality from taking "private property for
public use against the consent of the owner, without the necessity thereof
being first established by the verdict of a jury." Held: The right was
waived by the utility by the acceptance of an indeterminate permit, as
provided in section 1797m-78. In re Purchase of Grand Rapids El. Go's
Plant, 1914, 15 R. C. 258, 265, 266.
Contract contained in franchise.
13. The only contract between the city and the company respecting
the matter of purchase was that contained in the original franchise, which
does not stipulate the price to be paid. If it did, it would be inherent in ,
and part of the consideration of the franchise. Under the rulings of the
court in Gity of La Grosse v. La Grosse G. Sc El. Go., 145 Wis. 4Q8, and
Galumet Service Go. v. Ghilton, 148 Wis. 334, such provision would become
ineffective and non-existent upon the surrender of the franchise. In re
Purchase oj Grand Rapids El. Go's Plant, 1914, 15 R. G. 258, 266, 267.
Councilmen and mayor stockholders in utility.
14. When the company voluntarily surrendered its franchise and re-
ceived in lieu thereof an indeterminate permit by operation of law, the
contract, if any resulted therefrom, was between the state and the company
and not between the company and the city, the consent of the latter not
even being required to make the exchange effective. In re Purchase of
Grand Rapids El. Go's Plant, 1914, 15 R. C. 258.
Time of giving notice to utility or Commission.
15. The provision of sec. 17977n-81 is not imperative as to the time
of giving notice. No rights of the city or company were injuriously affected
by the delay, and a new election to determine the question of purchase
would cause great expense to the city without benefiting any one con-
cerned. In re Purchase of Grand Rapids El. Go's Plant, 1914, 15 R. G.
258, 263, 264.
IV. OPERATION.
a. CONDITIONS OF OPERATION.
Consumer's load.
16. In the absence of such data as would show the actual part of
feach consumer's load which is active, it may not be far wrong to assume
that 60 per cent of the business installations and 35 percent of the resi-
100 Electric Utilities. — Operation
dence installations are active. In re Appl. Durand Lt. Sc P. Co., 1911,
6 R. C. 334, 344.
a. CONDITIONS OF OPERATION. — Continued.
Demand factor.
17. As electric current cannot profitably be stored, the capacity of
the plant must be equal to the greatest demand that may be made upon
them. Their capacity must in fact be entirely out of proportion to the
average demand for current. In re Appl.-La Crosse Gas & El. Co., 1907,
2 R. C. 3, 21; In re Appl. Chippewa Val Rij. Lt. & P. Co., 1908, 2 R. C.
311, 319.
Load factor.
18. A reported demand equal to from 80 per cent to 100 per cent of
total connected load cannot be said to be at all a representative figure, and
the average, affected by these high ratios, does not furnish a fair basis
of comparison. City of Whitewater v. Whitewater EL Lt. Co., 1910, 6 R. G.
132, 144.
19. Ordinarily small connected loads result in smaller fluctuations
of the active load from season to season than large connected loads, with
a consequent better load factor and less idle plant equipment. In re
Appl. Red Cedar Val. El. Co., 1911, 6 R. G. 717, 753.
.20. Investigation in several cities indicates that the ratio of the
active to the connected load is usually about 40 per cent for residences and
65 to 70 per cent for business places. In re Appl. Red Cedar Val. El. Co.,
1911, 6 R. G. 717, 755.
21. Tests made in various cities show that the active load of installa-
tions of less than 10 h. p. is ordinarily about 90 per cent of the total load
connected, while for installations of 20 to 30 h. p. it is about 60 per cent.
In re Appl. Red Cedar Val. El. Co., 1911, 6 R. G. 717, 761.
22. The proportion of the active to the connected load was placed at
50 per cent and 65 per cent, respectively, for commercial lighting and for
power. Kenosha EL Ry. Co. v. Kenosha G. & El. Co., 1911, 8 R. G. 119,
123.
Ratio of current sold to current delivered at the switchboard.
23. In commercial lighting, losses of current represented by the differ-
ence between the current delivered at the switchboard and the current
sold ordinarily vary from 15 to 35 per cent of the amount generated. In
re AppL Red Cedar VaL EL Co., 1911, 6 R. G. 717, 758.
b. MANAGEMENT.
Financial transactions.
24. The plants should be treated as a business enterprise and kept
separate from other municipal functions. In re AppL Lake Mills Lt. &
W. Comm., 1912, 11 R. G. 160, 163-164.
25. The utility secures its power from the Stevens Point Power Go.,
but inasmuch as the utility is the sole customer of the power company and
the two companies have identical personnels of owners and executives, it
appears, that the companies are but nominally separate entities. In re
Service and Rates Stevens Pt. Ltg. Co., 1914, 14 R. G. 350, 352.
Electric Utilities. — Opevdtion , -. ^101 ,
26. Materials sold by a utility should be sold at a price high enough
to cover at least the cost of handling in addition to the cost of the goods,
and in the cost of handling should be included not only such items as
freight and cartage, but also the losses due to breakage, necessary waste
and other costs of a similar nature. In re Invest. Waterloo Mun. W. Sz El.
Plant, 1914, 15 R. C. 534, 551.
c. OPERATING RECORDS.
Necessity of keeping records.
27. The keeping of a daily station log sheet is of primary importance.
Such a sheet should furnish a daily record of output for different classes
of service and should also indicate the demands made upon the plant at
frequent intervals. These data are essential if the utility professes to
return a complete and adequate annual report to the Commission. In
re Service and Rates Stevens Pt. Ltg. Co., 1914, 14 R. G. 350, 355.
Physical data.
28. As a basis for unit costs of service the physical data are highly
important, for only through such units can a comparison of all utilities
be obtained. In a rate investigation, the accuracy of expense appor-
tionments depends largely on the correctness of physical data on hand.
In re Service and Rates Stevens Pt. Ltg. Co., 1914, 14 R. G. 350, 360.
d. QUALITY OF SERVICE.
Performance of street lighting system.
29. Utilities ordered to furnish street lighting service equal to
standard provided in contract. City of Whitewater v. Whitewater El. Lt.
Co., 1910, 6 R. G. 132; City of Sheboygan v. Sheboygan Ry. & El. Co.,
1911, 6 R. G. 353.
Candle-power measurement.
30. Candle-power measurements in a certain direction, although
when taken alone are considered by some experts to be unreliable as a
lamp rating, are some indication of the relative normal operation of lamps
having the same characteristics of light distribution. City of Sheboygan
V. Sheboygan Ry. Sc El. Co., 1911, 6 R. G. 353, 393.
Candle-power rating.
31. It is generally accepted by illuminating engineers that the
term "2,000 candle power" is a nominal rating not indicative of the
actual illumination of the lamp. City of Whitewater v. Whitewater El. Lt.
Co., 1910, 6 R. C. 132, 157-158.
Comparison of illuminating qualities of arc lamps.
32. The illuminating qualities of 6.6 ampere a. c. enclosed arcs and
9.6 ampere d. c. open arcs were compared. In re Jt. Appl. Waupaca
El. Lt. & Ry. Co. and Waupaca, 1912, 8 R. G. 586, 642; 9 R. G. 310, 313.
102 „ .. ., , „ . . Elettric, Utilities. — Operation
; ^'r^ '^ ^ ,'^' ^r>'^ :;?.,; >\- ' .>^ >
d. QUALITY OF SERVICE. — Continued.
Performance of street lighting system. — Illumination measure-
ments.
33. There is still considerable difference of opinion concerning which
reference plane should be used in making tests of street illumination. It
is safe to say that when no other observations are considered, there are
disadvantages arising from the use of any particular plane. City of
Sheboygan v. Sheboygan Ry. Sc El. Co., 1911, 6 R. C. 353, 376-377.
34. It appears that a comparison of light sources for street lighting
purposes by the amount of illumination that is produced at a certain
distance from the lamp leaves important factors unconsidered. In re
Jt. Appl: Waupaca El. Lt. Sc Ry. Co. and Waupaca, 1912, 8 R. C. 586, 626.
Substitution of 6.6 ampere a.c. enclosed for 9.6 d.c. open arcs.
35. It is the finding of the Commission that the city of Waupaca,
under the circumstances, has not suffered such damage by reason of the
substitution of the a. c. enclosed lamps for the d. c. open lamps as to
entitle it to claim any reduction from the contract price of the street
lighting service furnished it by the Waupaca El. Lt. & Ry. Co. from the
time of the change in the installation of street lamps up to the present time.
In re Jt. Appl. Waupaca El. Lt. Sc Ry. Co. and Waupaca, 1912, 8 R. C.
586; 9 R. C. 310, 318. '
Wattage measurements.
36. Wattage tests, although not indicative of the amount of light
given by an arc lamp, are, when measured at the lamp, an indication of
the condition of a series lamp's adjustment. City of Sheboygan v. Sheboy-
gan Ry. & El. Co., 1911, 6 R. C. 353, 393.
Wattage rating.
37. Illuminating engineers are by no means agreed that the wattage
basis is the proper basis for rating arc lamps, but it appears, in view of the
provisions of the existing contract, that it is the only practicable one for
use. City of Whitewater v. Whitewater El. Lt. Co., 1910, 6 R. C. 132,
157-158.
e. REQUIREMENTS AS TO SERVICE AND FACILITIES.
In general.
38. Under sec. 1797/n-3 (ch. 499, laws of 1907), "Every public
utility is required to furnish reasonably adequate service and facilities."
State Journal Prtg. Co. et at. v. Madison Gas & El. Co., 1910, 4 R. C. 501,
623.
Adequacy of service — In general.
39. While a utility is entitled to reasonable rates for the services it
renders, it has not the right to exact more than this. It must also see
that the services it renders are adequate and that they meet all reasonable
requirements in this respect. It is important that the interests of the
public it serves should be as fully protected as those of its own. In re
Appl. La Crosse Gas <Sc El. Co., 1907, 2 R. C. 3, 30.
Electric Utilities. — Operation 103
40. The matter of adequacy of electric service was passed upon in
the following cases. In re Invest. La Crosse Gas & EI. Co., 1908, 2 R. C.
670; State Journal Prtg. Co. et al. v. Madison Gas <Sc El. Co., 1910, 4 R. C.
501; City of Ripon v. Ripon Lt. & W. Co., 1910, 5 R. C. 1; Citij of Manitowoc
u. Manitowoc El. Lt. Co., 1910, 5 R. C. 360; In re Darlington El. Lt. & W.
P. Co., 1910, 5 R. C. 397; City of Kaukauna v. Kaukauna Gas, El. Lt.
& P. Co., 1910, 5. R. G. 695; In re Appl. Bloomer El. Lt. Plant, 1911,
6 R. C. 506; In re Invest. R. Connor Co., 1911, 8 R. C. 80; Wenzel et al. v.
Clifton Lt. & P. Co., 1912, 9 R. C. 222; In re Invest. Bayfield Mun. W. &
Lt. Plant, 1913, 11 R. C. 686; Rosencrans et al. v. Prairie City El. Co.,
1913, 12 R. C. 413; In re Service Janesville El. Co., 1913, 12 R. C. 570;
Madison G. & El. Co. v. C. & N. W. R. Co., 1913, 13 R. C. 409; In re Invest.
Service Neshonoc Lt. Sc P. Co., 1914, 13 R. C. 637; In re Service Dodgeville
El. Lt. Co., 1914, 13 R. C. 642; City of Sheboygan v. Sheboygan Ry. & El. Co.,
1914, 14 R. C. 215; In re Service and Rates Stevens Pt. Ltg. Co., 1914,
14 R. G. 350; Jones et al v. Berlin Public Service Co., 1914, 15 R. G. 121;
Filber et al. v. III. Northern Utilities Co., 1914, 15 R. G. 383; In re Appl.
United Heat Lt. cfc P. Co. of Delavan, 1914, 15 R. G. 505; In re Invest,
Waterloo Mun. W. <Sc El. Plant, 1914, 15 R. G. 534.
Continuous service.
41. The respondent should be required to furnish day service if an
amount of day business can be secured which will be sufficient to provide
a reasonable return on the property used, without necessitating an
increase in the rates to lighting users. It is ordered that the respondent
furnish continuous service, with power rates determined by the Gom-
mission. Rosencrans et al. v. Prairie City El. Co., 1913, 12 R. G. 413.
Definition of adequacy.
42. In formulating definitions of adequate service and rules for
securing the same, recognition must be made of the rapidly changing
conditions to which the electrical energy supply industry is subjected.
It is also obviously desirable that rules shall not be adopted which will
interfere with the natural growth or progress of the industry. In re
Standards for Gas & El. Service, 1908, 2 R. G. 632, 651.
Inspection of consumers' installations.
43. The rules of electric service formulated by the Gommission do
not make periodic inspections of all installations compulsory, for the
reason that some consumers object to the inspection of their installations
as an unnecessary interference, but the rules are designed to secure lamp
inspection service for such consumers as desire it. (Rule 27, In re Standards
for Gas and Electric Service, 1913, 12 R. G. 418.) Jones et al. v. Berlin
Public Service Co., 1914, 15 R. G. 121, 135.
^ Jurisdiction of municipal council.
44. The municipal council has ample power under the law to regulate
the service of respondent lighting company, to require additions and
extensions to its plant and to provide a penalty for noncompliance with
its orders. Chilton v. Wis. El. Service Co. et al., 1908, 2 R. G. 326, 332.
104 Electric Utilities. — Operation
e. REQUIREMENTS AS TO SERVICE AND FACILITIES. — Continued.
Adequacy of service. — Use of electric flatirons prohibited under
certain conditions.
45. The utility suggested a rule permitting users of flatirons to have
service during the summer months for one forenoon of each week, and to
forbid the use of flatirons in the forenoon during the winter. Although this
may not be very convenient to the users of flatirons, it appears to be almost
necessary for the satisfactory operation of the plant. In re Gilmanton
Mill Sc El Plant, 1914, 14 R. G. 152, 155.
Appliances for the measurement of product or service — Duty of
utility to provide meters.
46. It is the duty of the utility to furnish meters unless exempted
from so doing by the Commission. Electric Theater et al. v. Lodi El. Lt.
Plant, 1911, 7 R. G. 745, 753; In re Appl. Bruce W. & Lt. Comm., 1912,
9 R. G. 474, 476; In re Appl. Ft. Atkinson W. Sc Lt. Comm., 1913, 12 R. G.
260, 303, 318; In re Appl. Neshkoro Lt. <Sc P. Co., 1913, 13 R. G. 52, 54;
In re Appl. Endeavor El. Lt. & P. Co., 1913, 13 R. G. 448, 451; In re
Invest. Waterloo Mun. W. & El. Plant, 1914, 15 R. G. 534, 547.
47. The utility was ordered to install meters in the following cases:
Electric Theater et al. v. Lodi El. Lt. Plant, 1911, 7 R. G. 745; Wenzel et al.
V. Clifton Lt. & P. Co., 1912, 9 R. G. 222; Citij of Rhinelander v. Rhinelander
Ltg. Co., 1912, 9 R. G. 406; In re Appl. Ft. Atkinson W. Sz Lt. Comm.,
1913, 12 R. G. 260; In re Appl. Neshkoro Lt. Sc P. Co., 1913, 13 R. G. 52.
Duty of utility to provide transformers and lightning ar-
resters.
48. It is the duty of a public utility supplying electricity for light
and power to provide such devices as are necessary for the reasonable
protection of its customers and the public. It is unreasonable to require
the consumer to bear the expense of installing a new transformer and the
necessary lightning arresters. Such devices should be furnished by the
utility and maintained by it. In re Refusal of Service by Bloomer El. Lt.
iSc P. Co., 1915, 15 R. G. 612.
Station meters.
49. It is deemed advisable, in view of the inadequate records kept by
the utility, to require the utility to install a station watt-hour meter to
measure the output of the plant. In re Appl. Village of Withee, 1914,
13 R. G. 704, 710.
Utility exempt from duty of supplying meters in particular
instances.
50. It appears that the interest of all parties concerned will be better
served by requiring consumers to continue to supply their meters than by
having the utility supply them and charge a necessarily higher rate for
current. In re Appl. Gilmanton Mill & El. Plant, 1914, 14 R. G. 152,
154, 156.
Electric Utilities. — Rates 105
Refusal of service for failure of consumer to replace burned out
transformer.
51. Utility ordered to reinstate electric service for lighting and
power purposes to complainant, and furnish and maintain at its own ex-
pense such transformers, lightning arresters, and other equipment as are
necessary to supply such-service in a reasonably safe and reliable manner.
In re Refusal of Service by Bloomer El. Lt. cfc P. Co., 1915, 15 R. C. 612.
Refusal of service for nonpayment of bills rendered.
52. A public utility inay refuse to furnish service unless the charges
for such service are prepaid, or a sum of money sufficient to secure the
payment for services rendered during any future interval for which credit
is extended, or a bond to secure such payment is deposited with the
utility, but the utility may not condition the furnishing of service upon
the liquidation of indebtedness to the utility for past service. In re Re-
fusal of Service by Madison G. & El. Co., 1914, 13 R. C. 518.
f. STANDARDS OF SERVICE.
Standards established by Commission.
53. Both the direct mandates of the statutes and the variations in
standards of service actually in existence in the state of Wisconsin make
it imperative for this Commission to prescribe uniform, standards of serv-
ice for public utihties. The present order is confined to gas and electric
service. The preliminary investigations, conferences and other work
preceding the adoption of these standards are discussed and a series of rules
prescribed for the guidance of the management of gas and electric companies.
While these rules apply to every gas and electric plant in the state, on appli-
cation to the Commission and for sufficient cause shown, such modifications,
exemptions and concessions may be made with reference to these rules as the
facts in each case shall warrant. Without an express order of the Com-
sion authorizing it, every departure from these rules will be regarded as a
violation of the law. In re Standards for Gas <& El. Service, 1908, 2 R. C.
632.
54. Under authority of sec. 17977n-23 of the Wis. Statutes, the Com-
mission herein issued an order superseding the original order relating to
standards for gas and electric service (2 R. C. 632). The present order
has been made after extensive investigation and collection of data.
In re Standards for Gas and El. Service, 1913, 12 R. C. 418.
55. Electrolytic ampere-hour meters require different treatment
from the motor type of electric meter, which was the only one contem-
plated at the time the rules of service were formulated. Interpretations of
the rules and standards for gas and electric service (2 R. C. 632) are
made with special reference to electrolytic ampere-hour meters. In re
Merrill Ry. <Sc Ltg. Co., 1911, 8 R. C. 270.
RATES.
See Rates — Electric.
106 Electric Utilities. — Right of way, etc.
V. RIGHT OF WAY AND OTHER INTERESTS IN LAND.
Rights in and use of highways and public places.
56. The rights obtained by pubHc service corporations to occupy
the streets and alleys of the city merely confer rights as against the public.
Abutting property owners must be compensated for the additional bur-
den upon the fee caused by the location of the telephone and electric poles
within streets and alleys. Burns v. La Crosse Gas Sc El. Co. et ai, 1911,
6 R. G. 195, 197-198.
VALUATION.
See Valuation.
ELECTROLYSIS.
Prevention of electrolysis, cost of prevention, as element considered in
making rates for water utilities, see Rates — Water, 33.
ELECTROMAGNETIC INDUCTION.
Telephone line disturbance due to electromagnetic induction, see Tele-
phone Utilities, 45.
ELECTROSTATIC INDUCTION.
Telephone line disturbance due to electrostatic induction, see Telephone
Utilities, 45.
ELEVATORS.
See Warehouses.
EMERGENCY OR "STANDBY" SERVICE.
Rates for emergency or "standby" service, see Rates — Electric, 9;
Rates — Water, 3.
EMERGENCY RATES.
See Rates — Railroad, 48.
EMINENT DOMAIN.
COMPENSATION.
Necessity for and right to compensation.
1. The law is well settled that when private property is appropriated
by a municipality for public purposes such compensation must be actually
made or the means provided whereby it can be certainly obtained. {Brock
Equipment Rental 107
et al. V. Hishen et al, 1876, 40 Wis. 674; Smeaion et al. v. Martin et al, 1883,
57 Wis. 364; State v. Hague, 1888, 71 Wis. 384; State ex rel. Burbank v.
Superior, 1892, 81 Wis. 649; State ex rel. Andrews v. Oshkosh, 1893, 84 Wis.
548.) In re Racine W. Co., 1912, 10 R. C. 543, 550.
What constitutes just compensation.
2. The constitutional phrase just compensation has been generally
defined as including not only the value of that portion of a property which
is actually appropriated to the public purpose, but also any diminution in
value that the remainder of such property may suffer because of the sever-
ance of such portion. In re Cashton Lt. & P. Co., 1908, 3 R. G. 67, 80.
NATURE, EXTENT AND DELEGATION OF POWER.
Exercise of delegated power.
3. We apprehend that there is little difference in principle between
the actual exercise of the right of eminent domain and the agreement to
exercise it in case the right of way cannot be secured voluntarily from the
owners by purchase. Rib River Land Co. v. Upham Mfg. Co. et al., 1907,
1 R. G. 739, 760; Meyer v. Rib Lake Lbr. Co. et al., 1909, 4 R. G. 178, 188.
EMPTIES.
Express containers, return of empty containers, reasonableness of charges,
see Rates — Express, 16.
EMPTY CAR MILEAGE.
As element considered in making railroad rates, see Rates — Railroad,
126-127.
ENGINEERING.
Gost of engineering as element in the valuation of public utilities, see
Valuation, 85-86.
EQUIPMENT.
Equipment of street railway, allowance for cost of maintenance of, see
Maintenance of Equipment, 1.
EQUIPMENT RENTAL.
As matter considered in determining reasonableness of electric rates, see
Rates — Electric, 72.
Municipal equipment rental, apportionment of, in the determination of
unit costs for electric utiUties, see Accounting, 23.
108 Equipment Rental
Telephone utilities, rental for equipment, discrimination due to granting
rebates for repairs and equipment rentals, see Discrimination, 94.
rental paid to subscribers on account of ownership of instruin,ents or
facilities, see Discrimination, 91.
rental for equipment, paid by utility to subscriber, reasonable rental
permitted, see Rates — Telephone, 14.
What constitutes a reasonable rental for equipment owned by consumers,
see Rates — Electric, 52; Rates — Gas, 10.
ESTOPPEL.
Estoppel against public, government, or public officers.
1. The equitable doctrine of estoppel, by which a party is precluded
from denying that which his words, actions, or mere silence have caused
another person to believe, when a denial would cause injury to that per-
son, re not applied to municipal corporations with the same strictness as
to individuals. While cities are sometimes held to be estopped by their
acts, as to matters not clearly beyond their powers, this is true only in
very strong cases. In re Jt. Appl. Waupaca EL Lt. & R. Co. and Waupaca,
1912, 8 R. G. 586, 674.
EVIDENCE.
Substantial evidence in arriving at decision, see Railroad Gommission, 30.
Rules of evidence.
1. The Gommission upon assuming jurisdiction of the case thoroughly
investigated all matters which might have any bearing on the equities in-
volved in the case. It did not deem itself confined to the rules of evidence
applicable to the trial of causes in courts, but assumed that its investigation
should be made along the lines customarily pursued in cases brought
before the Gommission in the manner provided by statute. In re Jt.
Appl. Waupaca EI. Lt. & R. Co. and Waupaca, 1912, 9 R. G. 310, 312-313.
EXCELSIOR.
Reasonableness of rates on excelsior, see Rates — Railroad, 233.
EXCESS LOADING.
Extra charge for.
1. Gharge for excess loading when used as a measure of safety
to induce shippers not to overload, is not unreasonable. Brown
Bros. Lbr. Co. v. M. St. P. & S. S. M. R. Co., 1915, 15 R. G. 569.
EXCESS RADIUS CHARGE.
Excess radius charge for telephones, see Rates — ^Telephone, 15.
Express Companies 109
EXCHANGE EXPENSES.
Apportionment of exchange expenses in the determination of unit costs
for telephone utilities, see Accounting, 53.
EXCHANGE RADIUS.
Exchange radius for telephone utility, determination of, see Rates —
Telephone, 16.
EXCURSION TRAINS.
^ See Train Service, 17, 29.
EXORBITANT RATES.
See Rates:
EXPENSES.
Apportionment of expenses in determination of unit costs, see Account-
ing, 6-30, 34-57, 62-86, 88-118, 127-135, 137-146, 150-169,
174-183.
Legal expenses incurred in proceedings before the Commission and in
courts, see Legal Expenses, 1-2.
EXPRESS COMPANIES.
Charges, refund from excess charges, see Reparation, 152-153.
Classification in express service, see Classification, 5.
Delivery, place of delivery and necessity of making personal delivery, see
Delivery at Destination, 4.
Delivery service, a part of the service covered by the rate, see Delivery
Service, 1.
Delivery service limits, express delivery limits must be coextensive with
boundaries of municipality, see Delivery Service Limits, 1-2.
Delivery service limits, must not be arbitrary, see Delivery Service
LixMITS, 3.
Discrimination as between customers of express companies, see Discrim-
ination, 47.
Fare zones, establishment of, by express companies, see Fare Zones, 1.
Jurisdiction of Commission over the receipt and delivery of interstate
shipments of goods by express carriers. Commission without juris-
diction subsequent to federal enactment on subject, see Railroad
Commission, 57.
Rules and regulations of express companies, see Rules and Regula-
tions, 3. '
110 Express Companies. — Control and regulation in general
CONTROL AND REGULATION IN GENERAL.
Express companies engaged in interstate commerce.
1. Since the decisions in Western Union Tel. Co. v. James, 1896,
162 U. S. 650, and United States Express Co. v. State, 1905, 164 Ind. 196,
were rendered, congress has brought all express companies engaged in
interstate commerce within the terms of the Interstate Commerce Act,
34 Stat, at L. 584 (June 29, 1906). Strauss v. American Express Co. et
al., 1909, 3 R. C. 556, 574.
OPERATION.
REQUIREMENTS AS TO SERVICE AND FACILITIES.
Delivery service limits.
2. It is the duty of the express companies to make personal delivery.
Arbitrary delivery limits within municipalities cannot be established
without subjecting those residing within the boundaries of the munici-
pality, but outside of such limits, to an unjust disadvantage or prejudice.
The only territorial Umits of the service, that may reasonably be adopted,
are the natural and established boundaries of the municipality. Strauss v.
American Express Co. et al., 1909, 3 R. C. 556, 575.
3. Chapter 416, laws 1911, (sec. 1798m) makes the delivery service
limits of express companies co-extensive with those of the U. S. mail in
cities having free mail dehvery. In re Invest. Express Rates, 1913, 12 R. C.
1, 10, 43; Heineman Lbr. Co. v. Wells Fargo Exp. Co., 1914, 13 R. C. 594,
596.
ROUTING OF SHIPMENTS.
Circuitous routing.
4. Circuitous routing of shipments resulting in material delay in the
final deUvery of the shipments is entirely indefensible and must be dis-
continued. In re Invest. Express Rates, 1913, 12 R. C. 1, 43.
RATES.
See Rates — Express.
EXPRESS RATES.
See Rates — ^Express.
EXPRESS TRAIN.
See Train Service.
EXTENSION BELLS.
Extension bells for telephone utiHties, rates for, see Rates — ^Telephone,
17.
Farm Wagons 111
EXTENSION TELEPHONES.
Rates for extension telephones, see Rates — Telephone, 18.
EXTENSIONS.
Extension of street railways, see Street Railways, 16-17.
of telephone lines, see Telephone Utilities, 8-25.
of water mains, see Water Utilities, 3-12.
of water mains, adjustment of rates on extension of mains, see Rates
—Water, 11-12.
EXTRA LISTING.
Charge for extra listing in telephone directory, see Rates — ^Telephone, 20.
FACILITIES FOR INTERCHANGE OF TRAFFIC.
See Connecting Carriers.
FARE COLLECTORS.
Fare collectors to improve service of street railways, see Street Rail-
ways, 37.
FARE LIMITS.
Extension of fare limits for street railways, see Rates — Street Rail-
way, 6.
FARE ZONES.
Fare zones for interurban railways, see Interurban Railways, 11.
Zone rates for street railways, see Rates — Street Railway, 24-26.
Establishment of fare zones by express companies.
1. If conditions are such that express companies cannot serve all
at the same rates because of differences in the cost of the service to those
residing in sparsely settled sections of the municipality, or for other reasons,
they may lawfully establish zones and graduate their charges accordingly.
Such zones must, of course. Be established upon a reasonable basis. Strauss
V. American Express Co. ei al., 1909, 3 R. C. 556, 570.
FARM TRUCKS.
Reasonableness of rates on farm trucks, see Rates — Railroad, 234.
FARM WAGONS.
Reasonableness of rates on farm wagons, see Rates — Railroad, 234.
112 Feed Cookers
FEED COOKERS.
Classification under agricultural implements, see Rates — Railroad, 200.
Mixture privilege with agricultural implements, see Rates — Railroad,
200.
FENCE POSTS.
Reasonableness of rates on fence posts, see Rates — Railroad, 272.
FILING OF RATES.
Duty of shipper to ascertain that rates are filed in advance of shipments
to be made under the same, see Railroads, 66-67.
Necessity of filing railroad rates with the Railroad Commission, see
Rates — Railroad, 2.
FILING OF SCHEDULES.
See Schedules for Utilities; Schedules or Tariffs.
FINANCIAL CONDITION.
As element considered in making rates for street railways, see Rates —
Street Railways, 9.
As matter considered in determining reasonableness of railroad rates, see
Rates — Railroad, 186. ■
of telephone rates, see Rates — Telephone, 54.
As matter considered in the valuation of public utilities, see Valuation, 27.
Duty of common carriers to perform a certain minimum of service regard-
less of financial conditions, see Railroads, 85-90.
FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT.
Financial transactions in the management of electric utility, see Electric
Utilities, 24-26.
of water utilities, see Water Utilities, 20-22.
FINANCING.
Methods of financing water utility as element considered in making rates,
see Rates — Water, 54.
FIRE PROTECTION.
Apportionment of expenses between fire and general service in the deter-
mination of unit costs for water utilities, see Accounting, 176.
Apportionment of value of property between fire and general service, in
the determination of unit costs for water utilities, see Accounting,
184.
Flat Cars 113
Necessity of making a charge for fire protection, see Rates — Water, 8.
Order of Commission requiring the maintenance of adequate fire pressure,
see Water Utilities, 43-44.
FIRE PROTECTION RATES.
Fire protection rates for water utilities, see Rates — Water, 4-14.
FISH BOXES.
Reasonableness of rates on fish boxes, see Rates — Railroad, 236.
FISHWAYS.
Necessity of providing fish^vays at water power dams.
1. It appears from the testimony that there are at present no fishways
or logways at the McClure dam. Fishways, however, are a necessity and
the petitioner must construct proper chutes or slides for the passage of
fish past its dam. In re Appls. for W. P. Franchise on Apple River, 1915,
15 R. G. 712, 722.
FIXED CHARGES.
Elimination of fixed charges as element in making rates for municipal
utilities, discrimination in favor of consumers as against taxpayers,
see Discrimination, 45.
FIXED EXPENSES.
Apportionment of fixed or capacity expenses, see Accounting, 8, 44, 63,
174-175.
FIXTURES.
Discrimination due to practice of furnishing electric fixtures, etc., at or
below cost in order to secure consumers, see Discrimination, 18.
FLAGMAN.
Flagman for protection of railroad, crossing, see Railroads, 27; Street
Railways, 14.
FLAG STATION.
See Station Facilities, 15.
FLAT CARS.
Substitution of box cars for flat cars for shipments of tanbark. Albert
Tro$td (fc Sons v. W. C. R. Co., 1908, 2 R. C. 761.
114 ' Flat Rates
FLAT RATES.
Discrimination due to flat rates, see Discrimination, 16-17, 43.
* Excess indicator rates for electric service, see Rates — Electric, 14.
Flat rates for electric utility, see Rates — Electric, 10-14.
for gas utility, see Rates — Gas, 1. *
for water utility, see Rates — Water, 15-22.
Optional charge of flat rate or toll charge, see Rates — ^Telephone, 77.
FLATIRONS.
Use of electric flatirons prohibited under certain conditions, see Electric
Utilities, 45.
FLOOD GATES.
Flood gates in water power dams to control level and flow of water, see
Navigable Waters, 3.
FLOUR.
Reasonableness of rates on flour, see Rates — Railroad, 237.
FLOWAGE RIGHTS.
As element in the valuation of public utilities, see Valuation, 87.
Prescriptive flowage rights.
1. In absence of proof of prescriptive rights, lands not burdened
with flowage rights are entitled to protection against flooding. In re
Regulation Level of Water on Long Lake, 1915, 15 R. G. 708.
FLOW OF WATER.
Regulation of level and flow of navigable waters, see Navigable Waters,
2-8.
FOREST PRODUCTS.
Reasonableness of rates on logs and similar forest products, see Rates — ■
Railroad, 207, 238, 256, 257, 269-272, 298-302.
Trainload rates for forest products, petition for, dismissed, see Rates —
Railroad, 322. \
Trainload service for forest products, petition for, dismissed, see Train
Service, 11.
FORMULA.
Formula for computing radiation, see Rates — Heating, 1,
Franchises 115
FOUNDRY PATTERNS.
Reasonableness of rates on foundry patterns, see Rates — Railroad, 239.
FOUNTAIN RATES.
Public fountain rates for water utilities, see Rates — Water, 23.
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.
Property rights under 14th amendment, extent of duty of railway company
to operate at pecuniary loss, see Street Railways, 20.
FRANCHISES.
See also Indeterminate Permit.
Acquisition of franchises or privileges by street railway company, see
Street Railways, 11.
By acceptance of indeterminate permit, a utility waives the right to have
established by the verdict of a jury the necessity of the taking
over of its property by the municipality, see Electric Utilities,
12.
Duty of street railway to furnish adequate service so long as it assumes to
operate under permissive franchise, see Street Railways, 5.
Franchises so far as they are ambiguous are to be strictly construed
against the grantee and in favor of the public, see Railroad
Commission, 146.
Franchise value as element in the valuation of public utilities, see Valua-
tion, 28-36.
Power of Commission to vary a rate fixed by a special franchise granted
by a municipality to a street railway company, see Railroad
Commission, 132.
Telephone utilities, authority to operate a telephone utility derived from
the state and not the municipality, see Telephone Utilities, 26.
Usurpation of franchise or exercise of unauthorized powers by a railroad
company, see Railroads, 103-104.
by a telephone company, a grievance against sovereignty, see Tele-
phone Utilities, 65.
Voluntary surrender of franchise, see Electric Utilities, 12.
Nature of franchise rights.
1. The Railroad Commission is without authority to annul a public
utility franchise. Chilton v. Wis. El. Service Co. et a/., 1908, 2 R. C.
326, 331.
2. The right granted is the property of the grantee and is capable of
being mortgaged and sold. Even the dissolution of the corporation
would not forfeit the franchise, as it is a property right of which its
owners cannot be involuntarily deprived. {People v. O'Brien, 111 N. Y.
2; 2 L. R. A. 255; Chapman Valve Mfg. Co. v. Oconto Water Co., 89 Wis.
264, 275.) In re Appl. Village of Cashton, 1908, 2 R. C. 677, 688.
116 Franchises
3. We are clearly of the opinion and hold that the contract relating
to the pumping of water and furnishing of street lighting did not confer
upon the milling company any franchise, license or permit to use the streets,
alleys and public grounds of the village for the purposes of a commercial
electric lighting plant or water works, and that no authority was thereby
granted to the milling company to engage in the business of a public
utility, either in furnishing electric light and power or water to the
inhabitants of the village. It therefore follows that the notice of sur-
render of its franchises by the Gashton Electric Light and Power Company
was ineffective as a means of acquiring an indeterminate permit, at least
as far as the same pertains to the contract in question. In re AppL
Village of Cashton, 1908, 2 R. G. 677, 685.
4. Special franchises of public service corporations, on the one hand,
are covenants on the part of the public that the grantee may occupy
certain public grounds and thoroughfares for the purposes of the public
service undertaken, and that such service may be rendered upon certain
conditions within a specified territory; and, on the other hand, are gen-
erally covenants on the part of the grantee to perform the specific service
undertaken in a. proper manner and to charge therefor no more than a
reasonable compensation. City of Applefon v. Appleton Water Works Co.,
1910, 5 R. G. 215, 284.
Nature of franchise rights — Distinction between franchises
granted to telephone and telegraph companies and fran-
chises granted to electric, gas, heating and water utilities.
5. An examination of the statutes discloses that there is no analogy
between the franchises of telegraph and telephone companies emanating
directly from the state, and authorizing such companies to construct
and operate their lines along, upon and across highways, streets and
public grounds, and the franchises of companies organized for the purpose
of supplying municipalities and the inhabitants thereof with electric
light, heat and power. As a condition precedent to the exercise of the
privileges conferred by a franchise proceeding directly from the state to a
gas, water or electrical company in this state, a local license, privilege or
franchise is essential. (Sees. 1780, 1780a, 17806.) (Ashland v. Wheeler,
88 Wis. 607.) In re Appl. Village of Cashton, 1908, 2 R. C. 677, 685-686.
Nature of indeterminate permit.
6. Under the Public Utilities Law a municipality can only terminate
a franchise or indeterminate permit by determining to acquire the plant of
the public utility and paying just compensation for the property as a
going concern. It is not possible for the city to acquire the business of
the respondent without purchasing all of the property used and useful for
the convenience of the public involved. City of Neenah v. Wis. Tr. Lt. H.
& P. Co., 1915, 15 R. G. 626, 631.
Franchise subject to amendment or repeal by legislature.
7. There is no provision in the statutes delegating to the common
council of the city the power to alter or repeal the grant of a franchise,
though, through the exercise by the legislature of the reserve power in
Franchises 117
sec. 1, art. XI, of the Constitution, it might alter or repeal it at will.
(CiW of Ashland v. Wheeler, 1894, 88 Wis. 607, 616.) City of Ashland v.
Ashland Water Co., 1909, 4 R. C. 273, 302; City of Appleton v. Appleton
W. Wks. Co., 1910, 5 R. G. 215, 283; City of Watertown v. Watertown G.
6 EL Co., 1914, 14 R. C. 604, 605.
8. Under the Constitution and the Public Utilities Law a franchise
granted by a city is not a contract which binds such city to the terms of
that franchise for all time to come and which forever prevents a central
state commission from making an order in violation of the terms of such
franchise. City of Washburn v. Washburn W. Wks. Co., 1910, 6 R. C.
74, 95.
9. Objection was made to the jurisdiction of the Commission on the
ground that the franchise granted the respondent was a contract and not
merely a permit. This objection was overruled and the Commission
assumed jurisdiction. City of Janesville v. Janesville W. Co., 1911,
7 R. C. 628, 631; City of Milwaukee v. T. M. E. R. Sc L. Co., 1912, 10 R. C.
1, 12; Cusick et al. v. T. M. E. R. & L. Co. et al., 1912, 10 R. C. 314, 335.
Franchise values^ — Appraisal for taxation and for rate-making
purposes.
10. The fact that the earnings of a utility may be high enough to
yield a surplus that may be made the basis for franchise value and be a
proper subject for taxation, by no means implies that these earnings, or
the value based thereon, should also be the basis for rate making. Hill
et al. V. Antigo Water Co., 1909, 3 R. C. 623, 727-728; City of Appleton u.
Appleton W. Wks. Co., 1910, 5 R. C. 215, 282.
Monopolistic nature of exclusive rights to operate public utilities.
11. Exclusive rights to perform the services that are rendered by
public utilities are monopolistic in their nature, due to natural conditions,
and they belong to the community. State Journal Prtg. Co. et al. v.
Madison Gas & El. Co., 1910, 4 R. C. 501, 586.
Reservation of exclusive franchise values for the public.
12. The value of exclusive franchise privileges has been created by
the growth of population, and by economic and social developments
generally, rather than by any individual efforts. Belonging to the
public, the right to control and of the disposal of such privileges also
rests in the community. State Journal Prtg. Co. et al. v. Madison Gas &
El. Co., 1910, 4 R. C. 501, 586.
Right to occupy streets for interurban railway service.
13. The right of the respondents to operate interurban cars upon the
streets of Waukesha is a judicial question and not within the power of
the Commission to determine, but so long as the respondents continue to
render such service, it is subject to the jurisdiction and regulation of the
Commission. City of Waukesha v. T. M. E. R. & L. Co. et al., 1913,
13 R. C. 89, 90, 97.
118 Franchises
Right to occupy streets for Interurban railway service — Addi-
tional servitude upon highway.
14. Respondent's franchise authorized the use of the two routes for
both urban and interurban service. As interurban service would impose
an additional servitude upon the highway, such franchises only gave the
right to occupy streets for interurban railway purposes as against the
public, and it was necessary to acquire the consent of the abutting property
owners by mutual agreement, or secure the right through condemnation
proceedings. City of Janesville v. Rockford & Interurban Ry. Co., 1912,
9 R, C. 502, 507-508.
Telephone franchises.
15. It has been determined that a municipality has no power to
grant a franchise to a telephone company. An ordinance attempting to
grant such a franchise is ineffectual and void. {State v. Milw. Independent
Tel. Co., 114 N. W. 108; Wis. Tel. Co. v. Milw., 126 Wis. 1; State u. Tel
Co., Ill Wis. 23.) In re Free and Reduced Rate Tel. Service, 1908, 2 R. C.
521, 542.
FREE HOUSE PIPING.
As element in the valuation of public utilities, see Valuation, 88.
FREE LAMP RENEWALS.
Cost of free lamp renewals as element considered in making electric rates,
see Rates — Electric, 29.
Lamps to be renewed free by electric utility, see Rates — ^Electric, 18.
FREE OR REDUCED RATE SERVICE.
Discrimination due to free or reduced rate service, see Discrimination, 13,
14, 18, 19, 21, 23, 32, 36, 89-91.
Extension of telephone line to afford free telephone communication be-
tween New Richmond and the vicinity thereof. In re Exten. St.
Croix Tel. Co., 1914, 15 R. C. 241.
Free or reduced rate service for water utilities, see Rates — Water, 24.
prohibited by law, see Rates — Telephone, 25.
definition of, see Rates — ^Telephone, 22.
Free toll service is permissible when furnished without unjust discrimina-
tion, see Rates — ^Telephone, 28.
Free transportation of a car advertising lands in general does not include
transportation of persons in charge of the car when such persons
are not employed by the railroad company, see Rates — Rail-
road, 51.
Investigation on motion of the Commission of free and reduced rate tele-
phone service in Wis., see Rates — Telephone, 23.
Railroad company ordered to establish reasonable charges for carrying
passengers, see Rates — Railroad, 50.
Fruit 119
FREE SERVICE LIMITS.
Express companies, pick-up and delivery service, free service limits, see
Express Companies, 2-3.
FREE STORAGE PERIOD.
Additional free storage time allowed patrons in proportion to distance
from station, see Station Facilities, 16.
Extension of free storage time, see Demurrage Rules, 1-7.
FREIGHT.
Delivery at destination, see Delivery at Destination, 1-6.
Carriage of freight by electric railway.
1. Electric railway not authorized to carry freight unless franchise
specifically provides for such service. Wis. Veterans' Home v. Waupaca
El. Lt. & R. Co., 1915, 15 R. C. 656.
FREIGHT ACCOMMODATIONS.
See Station Facilities.
FREIGHT CARS.
"Spotting" of freight cars on public street, see Switch Connections, 24.
FREIGHT FACILITIES.
See Train Service.
Electric railway not serving as a common carrier of freight for hire, see
Street Railways, 31.
FREIGHT RATES.
See Rates — Railroad.
FREIGHT SERVICE.
See Train Service; Station Facilities.
FREIGHT TRAFFIC.
Relation between freight and passenger traffic as element considered in
making railroad rates, see Rates — Railroad, 148.
FRUIT.
Reasonableness of rates on fruit, see Rates — Railroad, 240.
120 Fuel Oil
FUEL OIL.
Reasonableness of rates on fuel oil, see Rates — Railroad, 260.
FUEL WOOD.
Reasonableness of rates on fuel wood, see Rates — Railroad, 299.
FUTURE VALUE.
Commission without authority to consider possible future value of prop-
erty of public utilities in determining reasonableness of rates. In re
Appl. Portage Tel. Co., 1908, 2 R. G. 692, 693.
GAINS DUE TO CHANCE.
Gains due to chance, as element in profits, see Return, 38.
GAINS OF BARGAINING.
Gains of bargaining as element in profits, see Return, 39.
GALVANIZED IRON TANKS.
Mixture privilege with agricultural implements, see Rates — Railroad,
200.
GAS RATES.
See Rates — Gas.
GAS UTILITIES.
Cost of service of gas utilities, determination of unit costs, see Account-
ing, 39-62.
Depreciation, rate of depreciation of gas plant, see Depreciation, 35-36.
Discrimination as between consumers of gas utility, see Discrimination,
28-29.
Minimum charges for gas utilities, see Minimum Charges, 9-13.
ACCOUNTING.
See Accounting, 39-62.
I. OPERATION.
a. Requirements as to service and facilities, b. Standards of service.
Gas Utilities. — Operation 121
I. OPERATION.
a. REQUIREMENTS AS TO SERVICE AND FACILITIES.
In general.
1. Under sec. 1797m-3 (ch. 499, laws of 1907), "Every public utility
is required to furnish reasonably adequate service and facilities." State
Journal Prtg. Co. et al. v. Madison Gas <& El. Co., 1910, 4 R. G. 501, 623.
Adequacy of service — In general.
2. The matter of adequacy of gas service was passed upon in the
following cases: State Journal Prtg. Co. et al. v. Madison Gas & El. Co.y
1910, 4 R. C. 501; City of Ripon v. Ripoti Lt. iSc W. Co., 1910, 5 R. C. 1;
Vill. of Sharon v. United Heat, Lt. & P. Co., 1913, 13 R. C. 1; Madison
Gas cfc El. Co. V. C. & N. W. R. Co., 1913, 13 R. G. 409, 416; In re Service
and Rates Stevens Pt. Ltg. Co., 1914, 14 R. G. 350.
— — Definition of adequacy.
3. Adequate service is not necessarily the best service which it is
possible to give, but rather the best service which can be given with due
regard to economy to the consumer and to the company. The kind of
service prescribed should not be materially different from that furnished
by companies operated under the best management and giving the best
service. In re Standards for Gas S: El. Service, 1908, 2 R. G. 632, 642-643.
Appliances for the measurement of product or service — Duty of
utility to provide meters.
4. It is the duty of the utility to furnish meters unless exempted from
so doing by the Gommission. Lothrop v. Village of Sharon, 1912, 8 R. G.
479; In re Invest. Hudson W. Wks., 1908, 3 R. G. 138, 142.'
Duty of utility to provide special kind of meters.
5. Rule 7 of the Gommission's Rules and Standards for Service re-
quires the use of meters reading directly in cubic feet. Respondent's
meters read in terms of dollars and cents, and an exemption from this rule
was granted the company pending the decision of this case. The ex-
emption from this rule is hereby made permanent so long as respondent'
continues the present process of manufacture. City of Ripon v. Ripon Lt.
<Sc W. Co., 1910, 5 R. G. 1, 88.
Right of utility to control meters.
6. Along with the legal responsibility must necessarily be conceded
to the company sole control — for it would plainly be as unjust as it would
be absurd to impose such a responsibility and withhold the right of pro-
tecting itself from loss caused by interference on the part of others.
{Blondell v. Consolidated Gas Co., 1899, 89^Md. 732.) In re Invest. Hudson
W. Wks., 1908, 3 R. G. 138, 143.
Refusal of service for nonpayment of bills rendered.
7. A public utility may refuse to furnish service unless the charges
for such service are prepaid, or a sum of money sufficient to secure the
122 Gas Utilities. — Operation
payment for services rendered during any future interval for which credit
is extended, or a bond to secure such payment is deposited with the utiUty,
but the utiUty may not condition the furnishing of service upon the
Uquidation of indebtedness to the utihty for past service. In re Refusal
of Service by Madison G. & EL Co., 1914, 13 R. G. 518.
b. STANDARDS OF SERVICE.
Standards established by Commission,
8. Both the direct mandates of the statutes and the variations in
standards of service actually in existence in the state of Wisconsin make
it imperative for this Commission to prescribe uniform standards of service
for public utihties. The present order is confined to gas and electric
service. The preliminary investigations, conferences and other work
preceding the adoption of these standards are discussed and a series of
rules prescribed for the guidance of the management of gas and electric
companies. While these rules apply to every gas and electric plant in the
state, on application to the Commission and for sufficient cause shown,
such modifications, exemptions and concessions may be made with refer-
ence to these rules as the facts in each case shall warrant. Without an
express order of the Commission authorizing it, every departure from
these rules will be regarded as a violation of the law. In re Standards for
Gas and El. Service, *908, 2 R. C. 632, 662.
9. Under authority of sec. 1797m-23 of the Wis. Statutes, the Com-
mission herein issued an order superseding the original order relating to
standards for gas and electric service (2 R. C. 632). The present order
has been made after extensive investigation and collection of data.
In re Standards for Gas and El. Service, 1913, 12 R. C. 418, 432.
Gasoline gas plants.
10. The Commission has established standards for gas and electric
service in Wisconsin but it has not been considered practicable to establish
such standards for gasoline gas plants. Vill. of Sharon v. United Heat, Lt.
Sc P. Co., 1913, 13 R. C. 1, 5.
Oil gas.
11. In view of the fact that the standard for heating value was estab-
lished with special reference to the production of water and coal gas, sep-
arate provision must be made for plants producing oil gas, and compliance
with such standard must be insisted upon. City of Ripon v. Ripon Lt. Sc
W. Co., 1910, 5 R. C. 1, 54.
RATES.
See Rates — Gas.
VALUATION.
See Valuation.
Going Value 123
GASOLINE.
Reasonableness of rates on gasoline, see Rates — Railroad, 268.
GASOLINE ENGINE TRUCKS.
Reasonableness of rates on gasoline engine trucks, see Rates — Railroad,
200.
GATES.
Flood gates in water power dams to control level and flow of water, see
Navigable Waters, 3.
Gates for protection of railroad crossings, see Interurban RaiIlways, 2;
Railroads, 28.
GENERAL EXPENSES.
Apportionment of general expenses in the determination of unit costs for
electric utilities, see Accounting, 19.
for gas utilities, see Accounting, 41.
for heating utilities, see Accounting, 65.
for interurban railways, see Accounting, 70.
for joint utilities, see Accounting, 101-107.
GENERATING EXPENSES.
Apportionment of generating expenses in the determination of unit costs
for electric utilities, see Accounting, 25.
GIFTS.
Property acquired by public utilities through gift, as element in valuation,
see Valuation, 109.
GOING CONCERN.
As element considered in the valuation of public utilities, see Valuation,
38-41.
GOING VALUE.
As element considered in determining just compensation for property in
case of municipal acquisition of public utilities, see Valuation, 42.
As element considered in the valuation of public utilities, see Valuation,
43-55.
Method of appraising going value, see Valuation, 130-140.
124 Going Value. — Nature of property
NATURE OF PROPERTY.
In general.
1. If property is devoted to the public use, and reasonable care has
been exercised in all the phases of its management, but the owners have
not received a fair return during the earlier years of the operation of the
plant in which the property is used for the convenience of the public, the
deficit thus incurred must be made up out of the later earnings, insofar as
this is commercially possible and expedient. Payne et al. v. Wis. Tel. Co.,
1909, 4 R. C. 1, 61.
Going value distinguished from good will.
2. Some confusion seems to exist in petitioner's brief between going
value and good will, or, in other words, between the cost of building up
a business and the value which accrues to a business because of the
patronage given to it by customers who are free to patronize a competing
business. City of Green Bay v. Green Bay W. Co., 1913, 11 R. C. 236, 243.
Going value distinguished from market value.
3. In calculating going value the cost of development must not be
confused with what an investor would be willing to pay in the market above
actual physical value for an established business. In the present instance
going value is determined from an examination of income accounts found
to be reliable and estimates of the probable cost of developing the business
based upon different rates of growth. City of Milwaukee v. Milwaukee G.
Lt. Co., 1913, 12 R. G. 441, 459-463.
Going value distinguished from the value of a going concern.
4. In the testimony going value was defined as that value which is
added to the physical value of a plant by virtue of the successful and
harmonious operation of the whole, and the coordination of the various
parts. This might, with propriety, be termed a definition of the value of
a going concern as distinguished from going value or the uncompensated
cost incurred in building up the business. Payne et al. v. Wis. Tel. Co.,
1909, 4 R. C. 1, 60-61.
GOOD WILL.
As element in valuation of public utilities, good will applies to competitive
enterprises only, see Valuation, 56-58.
Distinguished from going value, see Going Value, 2.
NATURE OF PROPERTY.
In general.
1. Good will may properly enough be described to be the advantage
or benefit which is acquired by an establishment, beyond the mere value
of the capital stock, funds, or property employed therein, in consequence
of the general public patronage and encouragement which it receives from
constant or habitual customers on account of its local position or common
Grindstones 125
celebrity or reputation for skill, affluence, punctuality, or from other ac-
cidental circumstances or necessities, or even from ancient partialities or
prejudices. (20 Cyc. 1275.) In re Cashton Lt. & P. Co., 1908, 3 R. G. 67, 84.
Applies to competitive enterprises only.
2. From its very nature, as well as from its legal doctrine, it is quite
clear that good will applies to competitive enterprises only. Hill et al. v.
Antigo Water Co., 1909, 3 R. C. 623, 720; In re Cashton Lt. & P. Co., 1908,
3 R. C. 67, 85; Payne et al. v. Wis. Tel. Co., 1909, 4 R. C. 1, 60.
GRADE CROSSINGS.
See Interurban Railways; Railroads; Street Railways.
GRAIN.
Establishment of joint rates on grain, see Rates — Railroad, 80.
Reasonableness of rates on grain, see Rates — Railroad, 241.
GRAIN ELEVATOR.
See Warehouses.
GRAINS.
Reasonableness of rates on dried brewers' grains, see Rates — Railroad,
230.
GRAINS AND SEEDS.
Unreasonableness of double minimum on mixed carloads of grains and
seeds, see Weights, 12.
GRANITE BLOCKS.
Reasonableness of rates on granite blocks, see Rates — Railroad, 242.
GRAVEL.
See also Sand and Gravel.
. Reasonableness of rates on gravel, see Rates — Railroad, 243.
GRINDSTONES.
Mixture privilege with agricultural implements, see Rates — Railroads,
200.
126 Ground Limestone
GROUND LIMESTONE.
Establishment of joint rates on ground limestone, see Rates — Railroad,
83.
Reasonableness of rates on ground limestone, see Rates — Railroad, 244.
GROUND WOOD PULP.
Reasonableness of rates on ground wood pulp, see Rates — Railroad, 274.
GROUP OR BLANKET RATES.
See Rates — Railroad, 52-61.
HAND AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENTS.
Mixture privilege with agricultural implements, see Rates — Railroad,
200.
HARDWARE.
Reasonableness of rates on hardware, see Rates — Railroad, 245.
HARMONIC RINGING TELEPHONES.
Rates for harmonic ringing telephones, see Rates — ^Telephone, 30.
HARROWS.
Classification under agricultural implements, see Rates — Railroad, 200.
HAUL.
Length of haul as element considered in making railroad rates, see Rates —
Railroad, 136-137.
HAY.
Establishment of joint rates on hay, see Rates — Railroad, 81.
Reasonableness of rates on hay, see Rates — Railroad, 246.
HEADLIGHTS.
Locomotive headhghts, merits of, see Railroads, 61.
HEADWAY.
Minimum headway for street railways, see Street Railways, 39.
Heating Utilities, — Operation 127
HEATING APPARATUS.
Reasonableness of rates on heating apparatus, see Rates — Railroad, 247.
HEATING APPLIANCES.
Rates for electric heating appliances, see Rates — Electric, 5.
HEATING RATES.
See Rates — ^Heating.
HEATING AND COOKING RATES.
Rates for electrical heating and cooking, see Rates — Electric, 5
HEATING UTILITIES.
Cost of service of heating utility, determination of unit costs, see Account-
ing, 63-68.
I. ESTABLISHMENT, CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE.
II. OPERATION.
a. Distribution of consumption, b. Requirements as to service and
facilities.
I. ESTABLISHMENT, CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE.
Method of installing metered system.
1. In metering steam for heating purposes, it is very essential that
the moisture contained in the steam entering the building should be
separated from the steam first, as it is naturally of little use for heating
purposes, arid it is manifestly unfair to charge the consumer with con-
densed steam which is of no service to him. This can be easily done by
inserting a trap in the steam pipe and returning the condensed steam to the
return pipe from the heating system, without permitting this condensed
steam to pass through the meter. With such an arrangement the meter
will read or will give the weight of steam which has been condensed in
the building and is, therefore, a true measure of the heat which has been
used in the radiators. In re Rates of Milwaukee Central Heating Co. et at..
1908, 2 R. C. 302, 306.
II. OPERATION.
a. DISTRIBUTION OF CONSUMPTION.
Consumption by months.
2. It has been approximated that the consumption of steam for
heating buildings for a period of eight ^months may be divided, taking
100 per cent as the total consumption, as follpws: October, 63^ per cent;
128 Heating Utilities. — Qperaiion
November 11 ^ per cent; December 173^ per cent; January 20}/^ per cent;
February 19 per cent; March 13 per cent; April 83^ per cent; May 33^
per cent. In re Rates of Milwaukee Central Heating Co. et al., 1908
2 R. C. 302, 305.
b. REQUIREMENTS AS TO SERVICE AND FACILITIES.
1
Duty of utility to supply appliances.
3. Sec. 1797/77-90 exempts the pubUc utiUty from furnishing any
part of the apphances which are situated in and upon the premises of any
consumer or user except telephone station equipment upon the subscriber's
premises and, unless otherwise ordered by the Commission, meters and
appliances for the measurement of any product or service. In re Invest.
Berlin Public Service Co., 1912, 10 R. C. 468, 472.
Thermostats.
4. The company reserves the right to furnish and install all thermo-
stats connected to its heating system at or at as near cost to the consumer
as they can be installed and to adjust and maintain same at all times,
other than breakage by the consumer or worn out parts, which supplies
and repairs shall be made by the company at cost to the consumer.
Jones et al. v. Berlin Public Service Co., 1912, 10 R. G. 468; 1914, 15 R. C.
121, 151.
RATES.
See Rates — Heating.
VALUATION.
See Valuation.
HIGH GRADE FREIGHT.
High rate for carriage of high grade freight, see Rates — Railroad, 20.
HIGH VOLTAGE TRANSMISSION LINES.
Jurisdiction of Commission.
1. Railroad Commission without authority to compel a change in
location of high voltage transmission lines when they interfere with
telephone lines. Ebenezer Tel. Co. v. M. L. H. & T. Co., 1915, 15 R. C.
619; Platteville, Rewey & Ellenboro Tel. Co. v. Lancaster El. Lt. Co., 1915,
15 R. G. 622.
HIGH WATER MARK.
Establishment of high water mark on dams in navigable waters, see
Navigable Waters, 4.
Illuminated Sign 129
HIGHWAYS.
Crossing of highways by interurban railways, see Interurban Railways,
1-8.
Crossing of highways by railroads, see Railroads, 3-55.
Improvement of highway approaches, see Railroads, 29.
Relocation of highways for protection or elimination of railroad crossing,
see Railroads, 39-44.
Restoration and maintenance of highway, see Railroads, 45-51.
''HOG FUEL."
Reasonableness of rates on "hog fuel" or mill refuse, see Rates — Railroad
248.
HOMESEEKER'S RATES.
Jurisdiction of Commission.
1. Railroad Commission has no authority to compel railroads to
make a lower rate to certain classes of passengers, but railroad companies
may of their own- volition give reduced rates to homeseekers. In re
Construction of Chap. 362, Laws of 1905, 1905, 1 R. C. 1.
HOURS OF USE.
Hours during which current is used as element considered in making
electric rates, see Rates — Electric, 30-33.
HYDRANT RENTALS.
See Rates — Water, 25.
HYDRAULIC POWER.
Saving from operation of electric plant by hydraulic power as element
considered in determining value of electric utility, see Valuation,
127-128.
ICE.
Reasonableness of rates on ice, see Rates — Railroad, 249
ICE BOAT.
Reasonableness of rate on ice boat, see Rates — Railroad, 250.
ILLUMINATED SIGN.
Installation of, for protection of railroad crossing, see Railroads, 22.
of railway crossing, see Interurban Railways, 1.
130 Illumination Measurements
ILLUMINATION MEASUREMENTS.
In testing the performance of street lighting systems, see Electric
Utilities, 33-34.
IMPLEMENTS.
Reasonableness of rates on agricultural implements, see Rates — Railroad,
200.
INCIDENTAL OR SMALL POWER APPLIANCES.
Rates for incidental electrical appliances, see Rates — Electric, 17.
Treatment of incidental electrical appliances in determining active
lighting load, see Rates — Electric, 15-16.
INDETERMINATE PERMIT.
See also Franchises.
Indeterminate permit possesses no value upon termination of grant, see
Valuation, 34.
Authority to construct plant.
1. No company can lawfully construct a plant until it has obtained
authority from the municipality. In re Appl. Interstate U. ifc P. Co.
et al., 1912, 10 R. C. 603, 611.
Continuous operation — Definition of. ^
2. The words "operating under an existing permit" do not suggest,
necessarily, in continuous operation, absence of momentary or reasonable
cessation. Excusable, temporary suspensions, involving no purpose to
abandon, the owner being willing and seasonably, under the circumstances,
able to resume and doing so, as in this case, satisfied the calls of a "public
utility operating under any indeterminate permit" (sec. 1797/77-79).
{Calumet Service Co. v. Chilton, 1912, 148 Wis. 334.) In re Appl. Interstate
Lt. <Sc P. Co. et al., 1912, 10 R. C. 603, 611.
Definition of indeterminate permit.
3. An indeterminate permit is defined in the statute as meaning and
embracing "every grant, directly or indirectly from the state, to any
corporation * * * of power, right or privilege to own, operate, manage or
control any plant * * * within this state for the production, transmission,
delivery or furnishing of heat, light, water or power, either directly or
indirectly, to or for the public, which shall continue in force until such
time as the municipality shall exercise its option to purchase, as provided
in this act * * * " (Wisconsin Stats., sec. 1797/n-l, subd. 5.) In re
Cashton Lt. & P. Co., 1908. 3 R. G. 67, 83-84.
' Indeterminate Permit 131
EflFect of surrendering franchise and receiving in lieu thereof an
indeterminate permit.
4. The legislature, in granting to a public utility the right to surrender
its franchise and receive in lieu thereof an indeterminate permit, did not
thereby make it optional with the utility whether it would subject itself
to the regulatory powers of the Commission. To place such a construction
upon the section thus providing, would be to destroy the meaning of
other sections, and, in fact, render nugatory the main purposes of the act.
City of Ashland v. Ashland Water Co., 1909, 4 R. C. 273, 305; City of
Washburn v. Washburn W. Wrks. Co., 1910, 6 R. G. 74, 95.
Indeterminate permit not absolutely exclusive.
5. Companies holding indeterminate permits, whether for single or
joint utilities, have assumed the responsibility for the highest reasonable
development of their business as well as for adequate distribution and sale.
For this reason the Public Utilities Law does not make an indeterminate
permit entirely exclusive, but allows this Commission to grant similar
rights to competing plants where conditions warrant the establishment of
such competing plants. City of Waukesha v. Waukesha G & El. Co.,
1913, 13 R. C. 100, 109.
Rights acquired under indeterminate permit.
6. Under the statute an indeterminate permit is more valuable than
the ordinary special franchises, because, under the permit, the company
has a legally protected monopoly and is subject to no different supervision
and regulation than it would have been had it continued to operate under
its original grant. Furthermore, its investment is now protected
not only against the consequences of competition, but also against
the possibility of total loss on the expiration of the original grant. It can
never be deprived of its property except on the payment of the fair value
thereof by the municipality. City of Appleton v. Appleton W. Wks. Co.,
1910, 5. R. C. 215, 284-285; In re Appleton W. Wks. Co., 1910, 6 R. G.
97, 119.
Term of life.
7. Obviously, the term of the indeterminate permit is indefinite and
limited only by the happening of the event specified in the statute. The
moment the municipality exercises its option to purchase the plant of a
public utiUty operating under an indeterminate permit, the life of such
permit is terminated. In re Cashton Lt. Sc P. Co., 1908, 3. R. C. 67, 84.
Time allowed for completion of enterprise.
8. Every company acting in good faith is entitled to a reasonable
time within which to promote and complete the project for which an inde-
terminate permit is granted. This is in harmony with the spirit of the law
as expressed by the supreme court in Calumet Service Co. v. Chilton, 1912,
148 Wis. 334; 135 N. W. 131, 144. In re Appl. Interstate Lt. & P. Co. et al,
1912, 10 R. C. 603, 611.
132 ''Indispensable'*
"INDISPENSABLE."
Definition of term "indispensable," see Practically Indispensable," 1.
INDUSTRIAL TRACKS.
See Switch Connections.
INJURIES AND DAMAGES.
Sums expended for injuries and damages as element considered in making
rates for electric utilities, see Rates — Electric, 28.
Allowance for reserve for bijuries and damages.
1. An allowance of 4.5 per cent of the gross earnings for 1912 and 5
per cent for the first six months of 1913 is deemed adequate for the re-
serve for injuries and damages. In re Service of T. M. E. R. & L. Co. in
Milwaukee, 1913, 13 R. C. 178, 225-226.
INSPECTION.
Inspection of consumers' electrical installations, see Electric Utilities,
43.
INSTALLATION CHARGE.
Permissible to collect special installation charge for protected telephone
wires, see Rates — Telephone, 44.
INSTRUMENT RENTAL.
See Equipment Rental.
INTANGIBLE VALUE.
See Valuation, 28-36, 38-59, 130-140.
INTERCHANGE OF TRAFFIC.
See also Connecting Carriers.
Adjustment of train schedules between connecting carriers to provide for
interchange of traffic, see Train Service, 8, 14-16.
Commission can compel railway companies to provide reasonable facilities
for the interchange of traffic between their respective lines, but
has no authority to compel interchange of traffic between land and
water carriers, see Railroad Commission, 52, 121.
Legal obligation of railway companies with regard to interchange of
traffic, see Switch Connections, 27.
Interstate Commerce ' 133
INTEREST.
See also Return.
Allowance for interest only large enough to pay interest on bonded in-
debtedness of municipal electric plant, see Rates — Electric, 36.
Apportionment of interest in the determination of unit costs for electric
utilities, see Accounting, 21.
for gas utilities, see Accounting, 51-52.
for railroads, see Accounting, 128.
for telephone utihties, see Accounting, 162.
for water utilities, see Accounting, 178.
As element considered in making railroad rates, see Rates — Railroad, 128.
Elimination of interest as element in making rates for municipal utilities,
discrimination in favor of consumers as against taxpayers, see Dis-
crimination, 45.
Interest during construction as element in the valuation of public utilities,
see Valuation, 90-91.
Interest on bonds and dividends on stock of railroad company appor-
tioned between intrastate and interstate traffic on basis of miles of
road, see Accounting, 135.
What constitutes a reasonable return for interest for public utilities, see
Return, 15-46.
for railroads, see Return, 47-51.
INTERLOCKING PLANTS.
See Railroads; Street Railways.
INTERRUPTED SERVICE.
Extra charges for temporary telephone service, see Rates — ^Telephone,
70-71.
INTERSTATE COMMERCE.
Commission without jurisdiction over interstate commerce, see Railroad
Commission, 53-57.
Power of Commission with respect to stopping of interstate trains, see
Railroad Commission, 58-60.
Reasonable regulation of grain elevator situated within the state and
owned by interstate railroad is not unlawful regulation of interstate
commerce, see Warehouses, 2.
Service to local stations by through interstate trains, see Train Service,
20-21.
Switching service, ownership of commodity switched, immaterial in de-
termining interstate or intrastate character of the service, see
Transportation, 5.
What transportation is interstate and what intrastate, see Transporta-
tion, 3-8.
134 Interstate Commerce Act
INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT.
Construction of the Interstate Commerce Act placed upon provisions of
the act which were incorporated in the Wisconsin Railroad Law,
see Railroad Law, 2.
Scope and purpose of act, see Railroad Law, 9.
INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION.
Block express rates between Wisconsin points ordered reduced to an
equality with express rates fixed by the Interstate Commerce Com-
mission when they exceed the latter, see Rates — Express, 17.
Jurisdictioir of Interstate Commerce Commission over service and facili-
ties of railroad companies, switch connections for intrastate com-
merce, see Railroad Commission, 101.
INTERSTATE SHIPMENTS.
Commission has no power to compel carriers to make joint rates between
points in this state and neighboring states, see Railroad Commis-
sion, 55.
Delivery at destination, jurisdiction of Commission over delivery of inter-
state shipments upon their arrival within the state, jurisdiction in
absence of congressional action, see Railroad Commission, 57,
INTERSTATE TRAFFIC.
Apportionment of expenses of railroad between interstate and intrastate
traffic, see Accounting, 132-135.
Relation of interstate and intrastate traffic as element considered in
making railroad rates, see Rates — Railroad, 149.
INTERSTATE TRAINS.
See also Interstate Commerce.
Interstate trains required to stop or to make proper connections, when
such changes are necessary for adequate service, see Train Serv-
ice, 15.
Jurisdiction of Commission over interstate trains, see Railroad Com-
mission, 58-60.
INTERSTATE TRANSPORTATION.
See Interstate Commerce; Transportation.
INTERURBAN RAILWAY RATES.
See Rates — Interurban.
Interurban Railways. — Construction, mainf. and equipm. 135
INTERURBAN RAILWAYS.
See atso Street Railways.
Certificate of public convenience and necessity, see Certificate of Pub-
lic Convenience and Necessity.
Discrimination as between passengers, see Discrimination, ■54-64.
Joint use of tracks with street railway, see Street Railways, 21-26.
Joint or through rates, power of Commission to establish joint rates be-
tween carriers in cases where there is no mechanical union of
tracks for the interchange of traffic, see Railroad Commission, 126.
ACCOUNTING.
See Accounting, 69-88.
I. CONSTRUCTION. MAINTENANCE AND EQUIPMENT.
a. Crossings — -interurban by high- c. Passenger cars.
way — protection of. d. Station facilities.
b. Crossings — street crossings — re-
pairs.
II. FARES AND TICKETS.
a. Fare zones. c. Zone system rates.
b. Tickets.
III. INTERURBAN RAILWAY COMPANIES.
IV. OPERATION.
a. Rt^uirements as to service and facilities.
I. CONSTRUCTION, MAINTENANCE AND EQUIPMENT.
a. CROSSINGS — INTERURBAN BY HIGHWAY — PROTECTION OF.
Automatic alarm with illuminated sign.
1. Automatic alarm with illuminated sign ordered installed. Town
of Pleasant Prairie v. C. & M. El. Ry. Co., 1913, 11 R. C. 557; Town of
Caledonia v. C. & M. El. Rij. Co., 1913, 11 R. C. 564; Town of Somers v.
C. 6c M. El. Ry. Co., 1913, 11 R. C. 581; Town of New Berlin v. C. & N.
W. R. Co. el al., 1913, 12 R. C. 358; Town of Caledonia v. C. & M. El. Ry.
Co., 1913, 12 R. C. 386; In re M. N. R. Crossings in Port Washington, 1913,
12 R. C. 550.
Gates.
2. Gates ordered installed. City of Kenosha v. C. <fc M. EL R. Co.y
1913, 11 R. C. 560.
Improvement of highway.
3. Improvement of highway ordered. Town of Caledonia v. C. & M.
El. R. Co., 1912, 10 R. C. 420; Town of Caledonia v. C. & M. El. R. Co.,
1913, 11 R. C. 564; Town of Somers v. C. & M. El. R. Co., 1913, 11 R. C.
581; Town of Granville v. M. N. R. Co., 1913, 11 R. C. 612; Town of Somers
V. C. Sc M. El. R. Co., 1913, 12 R. C. 377; In re M. N. R. Crossings in
Port Washington, 1913, 12 R. C. 550.
136 Interurban Railways. — Construction, maint. and equipm.
a. CROSSINGS— INTERURBAN BY HIGHWAY — PROTECTION OF. —
Continued.
Limitation on speed of cars.
4. Speed of cars ordered reduced. Village of Cedar Grove v. C. &
N. W. R. Co. et al., 1913, 12 R. C. 712.
Relocation of highway.
5. Railway company ordered to relocate highway. In re Crossings
near Mukwanago, 1913, 13 R. C. 32.
Removal of obstructions to view.
6. Railway ordered to remove obstructions to view. Town of Cale-
donia V. C. & M. R. Co., 1912, 10 R. C. 420; 1913, 11 R. C. 564.
When necessary.
7. The protection of a crossing which is rendered dangerous by the
physical surroundings should not be delayed because of the fact that no
serious accidents have occurred there. Town of New Berlin v. C. & N. W.
R. Co. et al, 1913, 12 R. C. 358.
b. CROSSINGS — STREET CROSSINGS — REPAIRS.
Necessity of.
8. The city of DePere prayed that the Green Bay Traction Co. be
required to properly plank the street crossings in the city of DePere. The
respondent agreed to make necessary repairs at street crossings. Under
the circumstances no action of the Commission is required in the premises.
City of DePere v. Green Bay Tr. Co., 1910, 5 R. C. 604.
c. PASSENGER CARS.
Adequacy of passenger cars.
9. Question of adequacy of passenger cars passed upon in McLaughlin
V. Wis. EL Rij. Co., 1909, 3 R. C. 400; City of Waukesha v. T. M. E. R. &
L, Co. et al, 1913, 13 R. C. 89.
d. STATION FACILITIES.
Location of waiting stations in cities.
10. On interurban lines it is impossible to construct waiting stations
at every stopping point within cities. The cost of acquiring the necessary
land and building structures would be so great as to make the expense of
rendering such service prohibitive; furtherniore, the convenience of the
public may require the changing of stopping points from time to time, and
in such event new stations would have to be erected and old ones abandoned.
City of Waukesha v. T. M. E. R. & L. Co. et al, 1913, 13 R. C. 89, 98-99.
II. FARES AND TICKETS.
a. FARE ZONES.
Uniformity in interurban fare zones.
11. Uniformity in interurban fare zones tends to reduce the inequali-
ties of the zon6 system to a minimum, if it is not obtained by making
Interurban Railways. — Operation 137
patrons at the most important points pay an increased rate by reason of
residing a short distance beyond a zone boundary. Lamb v. Eastern
Wis. Ry. & Li. Co., 1911, 6 R. C. 473, 495.
" b. TICKETS.
Labor tickets.
12. It would seem that the practice of steam roads and some electric
roads which issue commutation tickets in the form of cards with the num-
ber of trips indicated upon the margin is preferable to the method employed
by the respondent. However, until it appears that the new practice
operates prejudicially against some of the users of labor tickets, no order
will be made in the matter. City of DePere v. Green Bay Tr. Co., 1910,
5 R. C. 604, 616.
Reduced rate tickets — Sale of tickets on cars.
13. The conductors have ample time, in addition to their other duties,
to handle commutation tickets. If the sale of such tickets in cars results in
reducing the revenue of the company so that the company is unable to
render adequate and efficient service, then public interest demands that
the use of such tickets be dicontinued entirely or the price raised. The
sale of such tickets only at certain offices amounts to a discrimination
against such patrons as are unable to avail themselves of such privileges.
City of DePere v. Green Bay Tr. Co., 1910, 5 R. C. 604, 615, 616.
c. ZONE SYSTEM RATES.
See Rates — Interurban; Rates — Street Railway.
III. INTERURBAN RAILWAY COMPANIES.
Interurban railway companies, not subject to Two -Cent Fare Law for steam
railroads, see Rates — Interurban, 9.
IV. OPERATION.
a. REQUIREMENTS AS TO SERVICE AND FACILITIES.
See also Station Facilities.
Adequacy of service.
14. Question of adequacy of service passed upon in the following
cases: City of DePere v. Green Bay Tr. Co., 1910, 5 R. C. 604; Chromaster
V. M. N. Ry. Co., 1912; 8 R. C. 734; 1912, 9 R. C. 534; City of Racine v.
T. M. E. R. Sc L. Co., 1913, 12 R. C. 388; Strache v. T. M. E. R. & L.
Co., 1913, 12 R. C. 404; City of Kenosha v. Kenosha El. Ry. Co. et al, 1913,
12 R. C. 508; City of Waukesha v. T. M. E. R. & L. Co., 1913, 13 R. C.
89.
Frequency of stops.
15. Good practice upon interurban railroads require certain definite
stops of stations along the line for the receiving and discharging of passen-
gers. Unless this plan is followed, the usefulness of the service is de-
138 Interurban Railways. — Operation
■ ■■ ^ ■ ■■■ ■ — - - — ^ — — — '
stroyed and the public as a whole is inconvenienced. Racine v. T. M. E.
R. & L. Co., 1913, 12 R. G. 388; City of Waukesha v. T. M. E. R. & L.
Co., 1913, 13 R. C. 89, 97-98.
a. REQUIREMENTS AS TO SERVICE AND FACILITIES. — Continued.
Adequacy of service — Limitation of interurban stops.
16. With regard to the limitation of interurban stops in general, it
must be recognized that interurban railways are designed primarily to
meet the requirements of persons traveling between cities and villages,
and between rural districts and cities and villages, and are not intended
to furnish municipalities with local street car service. City of Racine v.
T. M. E. R. & L. Co., 1913, 12 R. C. 388, 393.
Package freight service.
17. The carrying of package freight on passenger cars discommodes
passengers and increases the hazards of operation, and the policy and
schedule of the respondent which tends to confine the carrying of packages
to emergency cases is reasonable. City of DePere v. Green Bay Tr. Co.,
1910. 5 R. C. 604, 615-616.
Routing of interurban cars.
18. To obtain the right for interurban operation on the west side would
require too great an expenditure. It is not to the interest of the public
that the capitaUzation of the company should be unnecessarily increased
in acquiring such rights. The respondent is rendering service in substantial
compliance with the terms of its franchises. City of Janesville v. Rockford &.
Interurban Ry. Co., 1912, 9 R. G. 502, 507-508.
Stopping of cars.
. 19. Interurban railway company ordered to stop cars for accommo-
dation of patrons. Woodmont Country Club v. T. M. E. R. Sz L. Co.,
1910, 5 R. G. 525; McKenney et at. v. Wis. Tr. Lt. Ht. Sc P. Co., 1914, 14
R. G. 811.
RATES.
See Rates — Interurban.
VALUATION.
See Valuation.
INTERURBAN RATES.
See Rates — Interurban.
INTERVENING PETITIONERS.
When not to be heard.
1. In proceedings relating to the construction of a spur track as pro-
vided in sec. 1797-1 Im, (ch. 352, laws of 1907), intervening petitioners
may not be heard. Jefferson Ice Co. v. C. <Sc N. W. R. Co., 1908, 2 R. G. 431.
Iron 139
INTRASTATE TRAFFIC.
Apportionment of expenses of railroad between interstate and intrastate
traffic, see Accounting, 132-135.
Net earnings from intrastate traffic as element considered in making rail-
road rates, see Rates — Railroad, 143.
As matter considered in determining reasonableness of railroad rates, see
Rates — Railroad, 185.
Relation of interstate and intrastate traffic as element considered in making
railroad rates, see Rates — Railroad, 149.
INVESTMENT.
Amount actually invested, as fair value upon which returns should be
made, see Valuation, 14-16.
Amount of investment as matter considered in determining reasonableness
of street railway rates, see Rates — Street Railway, 19.
Investment for anticipated needs, as element in valuation of public utilities,
see Valuation, 92-93.
INVESTMENTS.
Protection of investments, one of the purposes of Public Convenience and
Necessity Law, see Certificate of Public Convenience and
Necessity, 6.
Public utility investments, action of Commission with respect to, see
Public Utilities, 5-6.
effect of Public Utilities Law on stability of return on investments in
public utihty enterprises, see Return, 13.
effect of state regulation on investments, see Public Utilities, 8.
Return on investment, property employed in a public or quasi-public
enterprise, owner entitled to reasonable return, see Return, 4-5.
Securities of pubhc utilities as investments, see Securities, 1-2.
Safety of public utility investments under public utility legisla-
tion.
1. The effect of the Public Utilities Law, the laws which restrict the
issuance of security and other similar legislation, is to eliminate specula-
tive elements from the business of operating utilities of this kind and to
increase the safety of investments therein. Investors in public utilities
may find that under the Public Utilities Law of the state their interests are
as well, if not better, safeguarded than they were before these Taws were
enacted. State Journal Prig. Co. et al. v. Madison Gas <Sc El. Co., 1910,
4 R. C. 501. 586, 632.
IRON.
Reasonableness of rates on iron, see Rates — Railroad, 279, 288.
140 Iron Ore
IRON ORE.
Reasonableness of rates on iron ore, see Rates — Railroad, 262.
IRON PIPES.
Mixture privilege with agricultural implements, see Rates — Railroad,
200.
JIMMY CARS.
Carload rates for jimmy cars, see Rates — Railroad, 13.
JOINT OPERATION.
Joint operation of water power dams, when permitted, see Water Pow-
ers, 3.
JOINT RATES.
See Rates — Railroad; Rates — Street Railway.
Power of legislature to confer upon Railroad Commission the power to
order joint rates to be made, see Railroad Commission, 125.
JOINT TRACK.
Apportionment of joint track expenses in the determination of unit costs
for street railways, see Accounting, 141.
Apportionment of the value of joint track in the determination of unit
costs for street railways, see Accounting, 149.
JOINT USE.
Joint use of railroad stations, see Station Facilities, 17.
Street railways, joint use of tracks, terms and conditions, see Street
Railways, 23-26.
Street railways, joint use of tracks, terms and conditions, jurisdiction
of Commission, see Railroad Commission, 129.
Street railway and interurban railway, joint use of tracks, see Street
Railways, 21.
Telephone utilities, physical connection, terms and conditions of joint use,
see Telephone Utilities, 41.
JOINT USER RATES.
Joint user rates for telephone service, see Rates — ^Telephone, 31.
Lamp Renewals 141
JUDICIAL QUESTIONS.
Right of company to operate interurbaii cars under a street railway
franchise a judicial question and not within the jurisdiction of the
Commission, see Railroad Commission, 61.
JUDICIAL REVIEW.
Judicial review of orders of Commission, question of unreasonableness or
unlawfulness of order, see Railroad Commission, 108-109.
JURISDICTION.
Jurisdiction of Railroad Commission, see Railroad Commission, 32-107.
Validity of state enactment on a subject over which the state and federal
authorities have concurrent jurisdiction, effect of congressional
action, see State Statutes, 2.
JUST COMPENSATION.
See Compensation.
KEROSENE.
Reasonableness of rates on kerosene, see Rates — Railroad, 268.
KILN WOOD. -
Reasonableness of rates on kiln wood, see Rates — Railroad, 300.
LABELS.
Regulations for lab^s on freight packages of butter, cheese and
eggs.
1. Railroad companies ordered to cease applying rule which required
that each package of butter, cheese and eggs, in less than carload shipments
should be marked with the full name and address of the consignee.
Southern Wis. Cheese Mens' Prot. Assn. et ai v. W. C. R. Co. et al, 1909,
3 R. C. 459, 466-467; Wis. Butter Mfrs. & Milk Producers Prot. Assn.
V. C. <Sc N. W. R. Co. et al., 1910, 4 R. C. 494, 497.
LABOR TICKETS.
Labor tickets on interurban railways, see Interurban Railways, 12.
' LAMP RENEWALS.
Cost of lamp renewals as element considered in making rates for electric
utilities, see Rates — Electric, 29.
Lamps to be renewed free by electric utility, see Rates — Electric, 18.
142 Land
LAND.
As element in the valuation of the physical property of public utilities,
see Valuation, 94-97.
Method of appraising land, see Valuation, 149-151.
Right of donation of land.
1. The Commission can hardly subscribe to the doctrine that a
railroad company is entitled as a matter of right to a donation of the land
which it is necessary to possess in order to conduct its business properly
before it can or should be obliged to furnish reasonable and necessary
facilities for shippers. Gruber v. M. St. P <Sc S. S. M. R. Co., 1906, 1 R. G.
53.58.
LANDSEEKERS' RATES.
See HoMESEEKERs' Rates.
LAUNCH.
Reasonableness of rate on launch, see Rates — Railroad, 259.
LAUNDRY.
Reasonableness of express rates on laundry, see Rates — Express, 18.
LAWFUL RATE.
See Schedules for Utilities; Schedules or Tariffs.
LEAD.
Reasonableness of rates on lead ore, see Rates — Railroad, 263.
LEAD FOIL.
Reasonableness of rates on lead foil, see Rates — Railroad, 251.
LEASING OF FACILITIES.
Leasing of grain elevators to favored shipper or dealer an unjust dis-
crimination, see Discrimination, 48.
LEGAL EXPENSES. ,
Proceedings before the Commission.
1. That expense items such as those incurred in proceedings before
the Commission should be taken into account in the readjustment of
expenses, would seem to be fairly clear. At the same time it is also true
License. — Issue of by Comm. to deal in securities 143
that these costs require the same scrutiny as many other costs. In view
of. the fact that proceedings before the Commission are not of annual
occurrence, it appears that the greater part of the expenses should be
distributed over more than one year. In fact it would hardly be just to
consumers to include all such items in the costs upon which the rates for
an indeterminate period in the future are based. State Journal Prtg. Co.
V. Madison Gas Sc El. Co., 1910, 4 R. G. 501, 653; City of Beloit v. Beloit
W. G. Sc El. Co., 1911, 7 R. G. 187, 286.
Proceedings in court.
2. It seems perfectly clear that the expenses growing out of litigation
concerning the failure of the utility to pay for pipe installed in its system
were not incurred by the company in connection with the performance of
its service to the public. Therefore, it seems only just to exclude these
expenses, or rather such general law expenses as were not incurred in
connection with the performance of the public function of the utility
from operating expenses when it is determined what the returns of the
investment have been. In re Appl. Oconto City Water Supply Co., 1911,
7 R. G. 497, 508.
LEGAL SERVICES.
Legal services during construction as element in the valuation of public
utilities, see Valuation, 103-106.
LENGTH OF HAUL.
As element considered in making railroad rates, see Rates — Railroad,
136-137.
LESS THAN CARLOAD LOTS.
Granting of transit privileges does not affect rates on less than carload
lots, see Transit Privileges, 7.
LEVEL AND FLOW.
Regulation of level and flow of navigable waters, see Navigable Waters,
2-8.
LIABILITY OF CARRIER.
As element considered in making railroad rates, see Rates — Railroad,
153.
LICENSE.
ISSUE BY GOMMISSION OF LIGENSE TO DEAL IN SEGURITIES.
Public hearing — Statutory requirements as to holding of.
1. The Gommission is not required by statute to hold a public
hearing for the purpose of investigating the qualifications of an appUcant
144 License. — Issue of by Comm. to deal in securities
for a dealers' license, but in view of the nature of the protest and the
allegations made in the instant case, it was deemed advisable to hold such
a hearing in order to obtain sworn testimony upon which to determine
the merits of the application. In re Appl. Grieb cfc Greene Co. for a
Dealers' License, 1914, 14 R. C. 140, 141.
LIFE OF PAVING.
Life of paving constructed by street railway company, see Depreciation,
37.
LIFE OF PUBLIC UTILITY PLANTS.
See Depreciation, 28-36, 41-51.
LIFE OF STREET RAILWAY PLANTS.
See Depreciation, 38-40.
LIGHTNING ARRESTERS.
Duty of electric utility to provide suitable lightning arresters and trans-
formers, see Electric Utilities, 48.
LIME.
Establishment of joint rates on lime, see Rates — Railroad, 82.
Reasonableness of rates on lime, see Rates — Railroad, 252.
LIMESTONE.
<
Establishment of joint rates on limestone for agricultural purposes, see
Rates — Railroad, 83.
Reasonableness of rates on limestone for agricultural purposes, see
Rates— Railroad, 228, 244.
LIMITATION OF STATUTE.
Refund, claim for, barred by the limitations of the statute, see Repara-
tion, 29.
Refunds, computation of period of limitation, see Reparation, 30.
LIMITATION OF STOPS.
Limitation of stops within a city by cars of interurban railway, see Inter-
urban Railways, 16.
LIMITED OR "OFF PEAK" SERVICE.
Rates for limited or "off peak" electric service, see Rates — Electric, 19.
Loading of Cars 145
LIMITS.
Definition of yard limits, see Yard Limits, 1.
LIQUOR.
Reasonableness of rates on liquor, see Rates — Railroad, 254.
"LISTENING IN".
"Listening in" on telephone lines prohibited, except to ascertain whether
line is open or busy, see Telephone Utilities, 58.
LITTER CARRIERS.
Mixture privilege with agricultural implements, see Rates — Railroad,
200.
LIVE STOCK.
Establishment of joint rates on live stock, see Rates — Railroad, 84.
Reasonableness of rates on live stock, see Rates — Railroad, 255.
LOAD FACTOR.
As matter considered in making rates for electric utilities, see Rates —
Electric, 30-33.
Consumers' load and operating conditions of electric utilities, see Electric
Utilities, 16-22.
LOADING.
Loading per car as element considered in making railroad rates, see Rates
—Railroad, 138-139.
as matter considered in determining reasonableness, see Rates —
Railroad, 187-189.
Minimum carload weights, see Weights.
LOADING OF CARS.
As matter considered in determining reasonableness of rates, see Rates —
Railroad, 187-189.
Length of time allowed by railroad company.
1. The limitation in the length of time allowed the petitioner for load-
ing cars at its warehouse appears, in view of the small station and limited
sidetrack facilities at Colfax, to have been reasonable. Colfax Produce
Co. V. M, St. P. <k S. S. M. R. Co., 1914, 14 R. C. 86, 89.
146 Loading per Car
LOADING PER CAR.
As element considered in making rates for railroads, see Rates — Railroad,
138-139.
As matter considered in determining reasonableness of railroad rates, see.
Rates — Railroad, 187-189.
LOCAL CONDITIONS.
As element considered in making railroad rates, see Rates — Railroad,
140.
As matter considered in determining reasonableness of electric rates, see
Rates — Electric, 73.
of telephone rates, see Rates — Telephone, 56-57.
LOCAL RATES.
See Rates — Railroad, 103.
LOCAL TRAVEL.
Stopping of interstate train carrying U. S. mail for the accommodation
of local travel, see Train Service, 21.
LOCATION OF RAILROAD STATION.
See Station Facilities, 4-6. '
LOCOMOTIVE HEADLIGHTS.
5ee Railroads, 61.
LOGGING TRUCKS.
Reasonableness of rates on logging trucks, see Rates — Railroad, 234.
LOGS.
Establishment of concentration rates on logs, see Rates — Railroad, 35.
Establishment of joint rates on logs, see Rates — Railroad, 85.
Reasonableness of rates on logs, see Rates — FIailroads, 256.
LONG AND SHORT HAUL.
Necessary to disregard long and short haul principle under certain condi-
tions in making railroad rates, see Rates — Railroad, 156.
LONG AND SHORT HOUR USE.
As element considered in making electric rates, see Rates — Electric,
30-33.
Maintenance of Equipment 147
Discrimination between consumers of electric utility due to failure to
observe difference in cost between long and short hour use of current,
see Discrimination, 15.
LONG DISTANCE RATES.
See Rates — Railroad; Rates — ^Telephone
LONG HAUL.
As element considered in making railroad rates, see Rates — Railroad,
135-137.
LOSSES.
Distribution of losses resulting from rates for certain classes of service,
see Rates — Gas, 5.
LOW GRADE FREIGHT.
Low rates for carriage of low grade freight, see Rates — Railroad, 21.
LUMBER.
EstabUshment of concentration rates on lumber, see Rates — Railroad,
36.
Establishment of joint rates on lumber, see Rates — Railroad, 86.
Reasonableness of rates on lumber, see Rates — Railroad, 257.
MACHINERY.
Reduced rates on machinery and materials used in construction of manu-
facturing plants, see Rates — Railroad, 226.
MAINS.
Charge for tapping water mains, see Rates — Water, 91.
Extension of water mains, see Water Utilities, 3-12.
MAINTENANCE OF EQUIPMENT.
AUowance for cost of maintenance of equipment of street rail-
way.
1. In the instant case an allowance of a unit cost of 1.8 cts. per car-
mile is considered as the maximum amount which can justly be allowed
for the cost of maintenance of equipment under normal conditions. In
re Service of T. M. E. R. Sz L. Co. in Milwaukee, 1913, 13 R. C. 178, 219,
225.
148 Maintenance of Way Expenses
MAINTENANCE OF WAY EXPENSES.
Apportionment of maintenance of way expenses in the determination of
unit costs for street railways, see Accounting, 143.
MAKING RATES.
See Rates.
MANAGEMENT.
Financial transactions in the management of electric utility, see Electric
Utilities, 24-26.
of water utility, see Water Utilities, 20-22.
Introduction and use of improved facilities, as an element in valuation
of gas utilities, see Valuation, 89.
Schedule making a managerial detail for street railway company, see
Street Railways, 43.
Skill and foresight in management, as an element in valuation of gas utili-
ties, see Valuation, 89.
Wages of management as element considered in making rates for electric
utilities, see Rates — Electric, 42.
for toll bridges, see Rates — ^Toll Bridge, 1.
for water utilities, see Rates — Water, 36-39.
Wages of management as element in profits, see Return, 43-46.
MANAGING ABILITY.
As element considered in making rates for water utilities, see Rates —
Water, 39.
MANUFACTURERS' RATES.
See Rates — Railroad, 169-171.
MARKET CONDITIONS.
Established market conditions as matter considered in determining reason-
ableness of railroad rates, see Rates — Railroad, 181.
MARKET VALUE.
As element in the valuation of public utiUties, see Valuation, 60.
MATERIALS AND SUPPLIES.
Materials sold by utility should be sold at price high enough to cover
cost of handling, breakage, waste, etc., see Electric Utilities, 26.
Meters 149
MAXIMUM DEMAND RATES.
See Rates — Electric, 49.
MAXIMUM RATE.
Maximum rate for carrying passengers, see Rates — Railroad, 266.
Maximum rates for electric service, see Rates — Electric, 49.
MAXIMUM TARIFFS.
All published railway rates in force April 1, 1905, constituted maximum
tariffs up to Dec. 31, 1905, see Rates — Railroad, 2.
MAXIMUM WATER LEVEL.
Establishment of maximum and minimum water level, see Navigable
Waters, 4.
METER BOXES.
Duty of consumer to furnish water meter box, see Water Utilities, 33.
METER RATES.
4
Discrimination due to straight meter rates, see Discrimination, 25.
METERS.
As element in the valuation of public utilities, see Valuation, 99.
Charge for additional consumer on water meter, see Minimum Charges,
16; Rates — Water, 1.
Charge for installing meters, see Rates — Electric, 2.
Discrimination due to meter rental paid to utility by consumer, see Dis-
crimination, 20, 38.
Discrimination in rates or minimum charges on account of ownership of
meters, prohibited under Public Utilities Law, see Discrimina-
tion, 13, 40.
Double meter system or two-rate system for gas discontinued, see Rates —
Gas, 2.
Duty of utility to provide meters, see Electric Utilities, 46-47; Gas
Utilities, 4-5; Water Utilities, 27-29.
Duty of utiUty to provide special kind of meters, see Gas Utilities, 5.
Duty of utility to repair meters, see Water Utilities, 30-31.
Location of water meters, see Water Utilities, 32-33.
Meter rental, charged to consumer by utility, prohibited under public
utihties law, see Hates — Electric, 51.
Meter rental, discrimination due to meter rental paid to utiUty by con-
sumer, see Discrimination, 20, 38.
150 Meters
Meter rental, paid by utility to consumer owning meter, see Rates —
Electric, 52; Rates — Gas, 10; Rates — Water, 60.
Reconnection charges for meters, see Rates — Electric, 86; Rates —
Gas, 19; Rates — Heating, 4; Rates — Water, 84.
Right of utility to control meters, see Gas Utilities, 6.
Utility exempt from duty of supplying meters in particular cases, see
Electric Utilities, 50; Water Utilities, 34.
Utility may require consumers using electric fans or other power devices
to install meters at their own expense in particular cases, see Elec-
tric Utilities, 50.
Variation in minimum charge with size of meter, see Minimum Charges,
7, 13. 19.
Water meters — Effect of metering on consumption — Partial meter-
ing.
1. A judicious placing of meters where the greatest waste or abuse of
the flat rate privilege has been shown, shows that economies to be brought
about after 50 per cent of such consumption is metered are very doubtful,
considering the large increase in investment made necessary by metering
the remaining sale. City of Ripon. v. Ripon Lt. & W. Co., 1910, 5 R. C.
1, 86; Kirwin et al. v. City of Darlington, 1910, 6 R. C. 26, 40.
Exemption of certain consumers — Basis of exemption.
2. There are certain consumers or classes of consumers for whom
meters would be a questionable investment on the part of a utility. Those
consumers who have no sewer connections or other means of house sewer-
age obviously cannot waste much water, except for lawn and garden
sprinkling purposes. Kirwin et al. v. City of Darlington, 1910, 6 R. C. 26, 40.
MILEAGE BOOKS.
Recommended that five-hundred-mile books or tickets, good for purchaser
or any member of his family, be sold at ten dollars, see Rates —
Railroad, 266.
MILES OF ROAD.
Miles of road as basis for apportionment of interest on bonds and divi-
dends on stock between intrastate and interstate trafTic, see Ac-
counting, 134-135.
MILK.
Reasonableness of rdtes on milk, see Rates — Railroad, 258.
Train service for milk shipments, see Train Service, 9.
MILLING IN TRANSIT.
See Rates — Railroad, 172; Transit Privileges; Train Service.
. Minimum Charges. — Electric utilities 151
MILLING IN TRANSIT RATES.
See Rates — Railroad, 172.
MILL PROPERTY.
Mill property used jointly with electric property, see Electric Utili-
ties, 6.
»
MILL REFUSE.
Reasonableness of rates on mill refuse or "hog fuel," see Rates — Rail-
road, 248.
MINIMUM CARLOAD WEIGHTS.
See Weights.
MINIMUM CHARGES.
See also Service Charges.
Discrimination in minimum charges, see Discrimination, 39.
Reasonableness of advance in rates in particular cases, minimum charges,
see Rates — Electric, 65; Rates — Water, 69-70.
I. ELECTRIC UTILITIES. IV. RAILROADS.
II. EXPRESS COMPANIES. V. WATER UTILITIES.
III. GAS UTILITIES.
I. ELECTRIC UTILITIES.
Determination of minimum charge.
1. By adding the direct consumer expenses to the fixed charges on
the meter investment and also making a sufficient allowance for the cur-
rent which will be consumed under the minimum bill, the minimum charge
may be definitely determined. City of Manitowoc v. Manitowoc El. Lt. Co.,
1910, 5 R. C, 360, 389-390; In re Appl. Lancaster El. Lt. Co., 1910, 6 R. C.
53, 56; In re Appl. Greenwood Mun. Lt. Plant, 1910, 6 R. C. 60, 62; In re
Appl. Bloomer El. Lt. Plant, 1911, 6 R. C. 506, 517; In re Appl. Red Cedar
Val. El. Co., 1911, 6 R. C. 717, 760; Electric Theater et al. v. Lodi El. Lt.
Plant, 1911, 7 R. C. 745, 753; In re Appl. Darlington El Lt. & W. P. Co.,
1913, 13 R. C. 344, 356; In re Invest. Mosinee El. Lt. Sc P. Co., 1914, 13
R. C. 712, 719; In re Appl. McGowan W. Lt. & P. Co., 1914, 14 R. C. 325,
327.
152 Minimum Charges. — Electric utilities
Diflference in minimuin charge on account of- ownership of in-
strument or facility.
2. No distinction as to minimum charges can be made between con-
sumers who own their meters and those whose meters are owned by
the utility. Steps should be taken to remove this illegal feature of the
schedule at once. In re Appl. Bruce W. & Lt. Comm., 1912, 9 R. C. 474,
476.
Establishment of minimum in particular cases.
3. Minimum charges for electric service were established in the fol-
lowing cases: Lighting Service. In re Appl. Merrill Ry. & Ltg. Co.,
1907, 2 R. C. 148; In re Appl. Chippewa Val. Rij. Lt. & P. Co., 1908, 2 R. G.
311; In re Appl. Medford Lt. & Htg. Co., 1908,2 R. C. 421; In re Appl.
Cheiek Lt. & P. Co., 1908, 2 R. G. 662; In re Appl. Chippewa Val. Ry. Lt.
& P. Co., 1908, 2 R. G. 768; In re Appl. Stoughton Mun. El. Lt. Plant,
1909, 3 R. G. 484; In re Appl. No. Milwaukee Lt. & P. Co., 1909, 4 R. G.
89; In re Appl. Cumberland Mun. El. Lt. Plant, 1909, 4 R. G. 214; State
Journal Prtg. Co. v. Madison G. Sc El. Co., 1910, 4 R. G. 501; City of Ripon
V. Ripon Lt. <Sc W. Co., 1910, 5 R. G. 1; Ross et al. v. Burkhardt Millg. &
El. P. Co., 1910, 5 R. G. 139; In re Appl. Waupaca El. Lt. & R. Co., 1910,
5 R. G. 190; Cunningham et al. v. Chippewa Falls W. Wks. & Ltg. Co.,
1910, 5 R. G. 302; City of Manitowoc v. Manitowoc El. Lt. Co., 1910, 5 R. G.
360; In re Appl. Jefferson Mun. El. Lt. & W. Plant, 1910, 5 R. G. 555;
In re Appl. Lancaster El. Lt. Co., 1910, 6 R. G. 53; In re Appl. Greenwood
Mun. Lt. Plant, 1910, 6 R. G. 60; In re Appl. Durand Lt. 6c P. Co., 1911,
6 R. G. 334; In re Appl. Bloomer El. Lt. Plant, 1911, 6 R. G. 506; City of
Beloit V. Beloit W. G. & El. Co., 1911, 7 R. G. 187; Electric Theater et al. v.
Lodi El. Lt. Plant, 1911, 7 R. G. 745; In re Appl. La Crosse Gas & El. Co.,
1911, 8 R. G. 138; In re Appl. Chippewa Val. Ry. Lt. & P. Co., 1912, 9 R. G.
305; City of Rhinelander v. Rhinelander Ltg. Co., 1912, 9 R. G. 406; In re
Appl. Village of Whitehall, 1912, 9 R. G. 479; In re Invest. Milw. Electric
Rates, 1912, 9 R. G. 541; In re Invest. Chippewa Val. Ry.Lt.Sc P. Co., 1912,
10 R. G. 692; Superior Commit Club et al. v. Superior W. Lt. <Sc P. Co., 1912,
10 R. G. 704; In re Invest. Evansville El. Lt. & W. Plant 1912, 11 R.
G. 197; In re Appl. Village of Arcadia, 1912, 11 R. G. 216; In re Appl.
Chetek Lt. & P. Co., 1912, 11 R. G. 227; In re Appl. Monticello El. Lt.
Co., 1913, U R. G. 265; In re Appl. Columbus W. & Lt. Comm., 1913,
11 R. G. 449; In re Appl. Ft. Atkinson W. cfc Lt. Comm., 1913; 12 R. G.
260; City of Green Bay v. Green Bay Gas & El. Co., 1913, 12 R. G. 324;
Douglas et al. v. Equitable El. Lt. Co., 1913, 12 R. G. 337; In re
Appl. Chippewa Val. Ry. Lt. & P. Co., 1913, 12 R. G. 548; In re Invest.
Electric Rates in Oconto, 1913, 12 R. G. 584; In re Invest Chippewa Val.
Ry. Lt. & P. Co., 1913, 13 R. G. 19; In re Appl. Neshkoro Lt. & P. Co.,
1913, 13 R. G. 52; City of Waukesha v. Waukesha G. & El. Co., 1913, 13 .
R. G. 100; In re Madison G. & El. Co., 1913, 13 R. G. 259; In re Appl.
Darlington El. Lt. <Sc W. P. Co., 1913, 13 R. G. 344; In re Appl. City of
Menasha, 1913, 13 R. G. 424; In re Invest. Chippewa Val. Ry. Lt. <Sc P. Co.,
1913, 13 R. G. 444; In re Appl. Mt. Horeb lit. Lt. & P. Co., 1914, 13 R. G.
653; In re Appl. Village of Withee, 1914, 13 R. G. 704; In re Invest. Mosinee
Minimum Charges. — Electric utilities 153
El. Lt. S: P. Co., 1914, 13 R. C. 712; In re Appl. Milton W. U. iSc P. Co.,
1914, 14 R. C. 206; Hood et al. v. Monroe El. Co., 1914, 14 R. C. 227;
In re Appl. McGowan W. Lt. cfc P. Co., 1914, 14 R. C. 325; In re Stevens Pt.
Ltg. Co., 1914, 14 R. C. 350; Douglas et al. v. Equitable El. Lt. Co., 1914,
14 R. C. 381; Kittleson et al. u. Elroy Mun. W. S: Lt. Plant, 1914, 14 R. C.
485; In re Appl. Browntown Mun. Lt. Plant, 1914, 14 R. C. 560; Jones et al.
V. Berlin Public Service Co., 1914, 15 R. C. 121; In re Appl. Sun Prairie
Mun. El. Plant, 1914, 15 R. C. 189; In re Appl. Burkhardt Millg. & El.
P. Co., 1914, 15 R. C. 409; In re Appl. United Ht. Lt. & P. Co., 1914, 15
R. C. 505; In re Appl. Whitewater El. Lt. Co., 1914, 15 R. C. 517; In re
Invest. Waterloo Mun. W. cfc El. Plant, 1914, 15 R. C. 534.
4. Power Service. In re Appl. Chippewa Val. Ry. Lt. cfc P. Co.,
1908, 2 R. C. 311; 768; In re Appl. Stoughton Mun. El. Lt. Plant, 1909,
3 R. C. 484; In re Men. & Mar. Lt. & Tr. Co., 1909, 3 R. C. 778; In re
Appl. No. Milwaukee Lt. & P. Co., 1909, 4 R. C. 89; State Journal Prtg.
Co. V. Madison G. & El. Co., 1910, 4 R. C. 501; City of Beloit v. Beloit
W. G. & El. Co., 1911, 7 R. G. 187; In re Appl. Chippewa Val. Ry. Lt.
& P. Co., 1912, 9 R. C. 305; In re Invest. Milwaukee Electric Rates,
1912, 9 R. C. 541; In re Invest. Electric Rates in Oconto, 1913, 12 R. G.
584; In re Appl. Neshkoro Lt. & P. Co., 1913, 13 R. G. 52; City of Wauke-
sha V. Waukesha G. Sc El. Co., 1913, 13 R. C. 100; In re Appl. Darlington
El. Lt. <Sc W. P. Co., 1913, 13 R. G. 344; In re Appl. City of Menasha, 1913,
13 R. G. 424; Hoodet al. v. Monroe El. Co., 1914, 14 R. G. 227; In re Stev-
ens Pt. Ltg. Co.,1914, 14 R. G. 350; In re Appl. Richland Center El. Lt. & W.
Plant, 1914, 14 R. G. 590; Jones et al. v. Berlin Public Service Co., 1914,
15 R. G. 121; In re Appl. Sun Prairie Mun. El. Plant, 1914, 15 R. G. 189;
In re Appl Manitowoc W. <Sc El. Plants, 19U, 15 R. G.212; In re Appl.
United Ht. Lt. & P. Co., 1914, 15 R. G. 505.
Purpose of minimum charge.
5. Minimum rates are intended to cover the fixed expenses for those
who use so little current that the cost of carrying them would not otherwise
be met. In re Appl. North Milwaukee Lt. & P. Co., 1909, 4 R. G. 89, 92;
City of Ripon v. Ripon Lt. & W. Co., 1910, 5 R. G. 1, 41; In re Appl.
Jefferson Mun. El. Lt. & W. Plant, 1910, 5 R. G. 555, 574; In re Appl.
Lancaster El. Lt. Co., 1910, 6 R. G. 53, 57; In re Appl. Greenwood Mun.
Lt. Plant, 1910, 6 R. G. 60, 61; In re Appl. Red Cedar Val. El. Co., 1911,
6 R. G. 717, 759-760; Superior Comnil Club et al. v. Superior W.Lt. &
P. Co., 1912, 10 R. G. 704, 804; In re Appl. Monticello El. Lt. Co., 1913,
11 R. G. 265, 266; In re Appl. McGowan W. Lt. & P. Co., 1914, 14 R. G.
325, 327, 328; In re Service and Rates Stevens Pt. Ltg. Co., 1914, 14 R. C.
350, 374-375.
Reasonableness of minimum charge.
6. The minimum charge should yield a return equal to the consumer
cost, and an additional amount to cover the value of the smallest amount of
current used by any class of consumers. In re Appl. Greenwood Mun.
Lt. Plant, 1910, 6 R. G. 60, 62; In re Appl. Milton W. U. & P. ,Co., 1914,
14 R. G. 206, 207; In re Appl. McGowan W. Lt. <Sc P. Co., 1914, 14 R. G.
325, 327; In re Appl. Browntown Mun. Lt. Plant, 1914. 14 R. G. 560, 564;
154 Minimum Charges. — Electric utilUies
In re AppL Richland Center El. Li. & W. Plant, 1914, 14 R. C. 590, 591;
In re Appl. Whitewater El. Lt. Co., 1914, 15 R. C. 517, 519.
Variation in minimum charge with size of installation.
7. A rate schedule in which the minimum rate depends on the size of
the installation, may not be bad in principle, for it is more than likely that
the minimum should bear a more or less close relation to that part of the
expense which depends on the demand as well as to those expenses which
depend on the number of customers and which vary with this number.
In re Appl. Cumberland Man. EL Ltg. Plant, 1909, 4 R. G. 214, 228-229.
II. EXPRESS COMPANIES.
Nature of minimum charge.
8. Careful analysis of express operations reveals that a considerable
expense is incurred, for every shipment, which is practically the same for
all whether the shipments weigh one ounce or fifty pounds, and whether
they move between stations ten or a hundred miles apart. The shipment
cost, is the fixed minimum cost of handling applying to all shipments.
In re Invest. Express Rates, 1913, 12 R. G. 1, 36.
III. GAS UTILITIES.
Determination of minimum charge.
9. Minimum charges, like practically all other rates and charges
levied for such services as those rendered by public utilities, should be
determined with reference to the particular parts of the operating expenses
of the plant that are involved. In re Appl. Green Bay Gas & El. Co.,
1910, 5 R. G. 101, 105; City of Racine u. Racine Gas Lt. Co., 1911, 6 R. G.
228, 315; City of Neenah v. Wis. Tr. Lt. H. Sc P. Co., 1911, 7 R. G. 477, 491;
In re Appl. La Crosse G. & El. Co., 1911, 8 R. G. 138, 201; City of Neenah
V. Wis. Tr. Lt. H. Sc P. Co., 1911, 8 R. G. 251, 258; Lothrop v. Village
of Sharon, 1912, 8 R. G. 479, 491; Superior Comm'l Club et al. u. Superior
W. Lt. & P. Co., 1912, 10 R. C. 704, 77S; City of Green Bwj v. Green Bay
G. & El. Co., 1913, 12 R. G. 324, 330; Yanko et al. v. Portage American
Gas Co., 1913, 13 R. G. 136, 143.
Establishment of minimum charges in particular cases.
10. Minimum charges for gas service were established in the following
cases: State Journal Prtg. Co. v. Madison G. & El. Co., 1910, 4 R. C. 501;
City of Ripon v. Ripon Lt. <Sc W. Co., 1910, 5 R. G. 1; In re Appl. Green
Bay G. & El. Co., 1910, 5 R. G. 101; City of Racine v. Racine G. Lt. Co.,
1911, '6 R. G. 228; City of Beloit v. Beloit W. G. & El. Co., 1911, 7 R. G.
187; City of Neenah v. Wis. Tr. Lt. Ht. Sc P. Co., 1911, 7 R. G. 477; Lothrop
et al. V. Village of Sharon, 1912, 8 R. G. 479; Meyer et al. v. Sheboygan Gas
Li. Co., 1912, 9 R. C. 439; 1913, 11 R. C. 309; City ofGreenBay v. GreenBay
Gas & El. Co., 1913, 12 R. G. 324; City of Milwaukee v. Milw. Gas Lt. Co.,
1913, 12 R. G. 441; City of Waukesha v. Waukesha G cfc El. Co., 1913.
13 R. G. 100; Yanko et al. v. Portage American Gas Co., 1913, 13 R. G.
136; In re Appl. Manitowoc Gas Co., 1913, 13 R. G. 325; Jones et al v.
Berlin Public Service Co., 1914, 15 R. G. 121.
Minimum Charges. — Wafer uiilities 155
Purpose of minimum charge.
11. The chief argument for the minimum charge appears to be that
it simply covers items in the operating expenses of the plants, that in the
ordinary rate schedules cannot be covered in any other way. In re Appl.
Green Bay Gas & El. Co., 1910, 5 R. C. 101, 105; Meyer ct al. v. Sheboygan
Gas U. Co., 1912, 9 R. G. 439, 465.
Reasonableness of minimum charge,
12. The reasonableness of the amount of the minimum charge is most
properly tested by the facts in each case. Superior Comm'l Club et al. v.
Superior W. Li. & P. Co., 1912, 10 R. C. 704, 778.
•Variation in minimum charge with size of meter.
13. A fair and reasonable rate schedule must recognize, by its
minimum bill or service charge, the varying cost per meter according to
the size of meter used. City of Racine u. Racine Gas Lt. Co., 1911, 6 R. C.
228, 314.
■ •
IV. RAILROADS.
Reasonableness of minimum charge on package freight.
14. The minimum charge of 40 cents on package freight now in
effect on shipments between points in Wisconsin is excessive and the
former charge of 25 cents should be restored for all shipments between
points in Wisconsin on the same line of railway. On shipments involving
more than one line the minimum charge shall be 40 cents. In re Minimum
Charges on Package Freight, 1907, 2 R. C. 34, 36.
V. WATER UTILITIES.
Determination of minimum charge.
15. The minimum bill must be greater than the total of the direct
consumer and meter expenses, because practically every consumer paying
the minimum bill has used considerable water during the year, and thereby
incurred some output expenses. If the minimum bill covered only the
bare consumer costs, the water used would really be received free of charge.
City of Ripon v. Ripon Lt. 6c W. Co., 1910, 5 R. C. 1, 83; In re Appl
Jefferson Mun. El Lt. Sc W. Plant, 1910, 5 R. G. 555, 581; Dick et al v.
Madison Water Comm., 1910, 5 R. G. 731, 766, 768-769; In re Appl
People's W. Lt. cfc P. Co., 1912, 10 R. G. 651, 656; In re Appl Fennimore
Mun. W. Sc LI Plant, 1913, 12 R. G. 194, 205; Hughes et al v. Watertown
W. Wks., 1914, 14 R. G. 669, 680.
Charge for additional consumers on the same meter.
16. In determining charges to be made for additional consumers on
the same meter the fact must be recognized that certain meter costs,
such as interest, depreciation and repairs, become proportionately less
per customer when the number of customers supplied through the meter
is increased. On the other hand, it must be remembered that the lower
steps for rates outlined in the schedule are reached sooner when more
156 Minimum Charges. — Water utilities ■
consumers are connected to the same meter. In re Appl. City of Sparta,
1913, 12 R. G. 532, 545. Charges for additional consumers were fixed in
the following cases :-/n re Appl. Village of Elkhart Lake, 1913, 11 R. C.
690; In re Appl. City of Sparta, 1913, 12 R. G. 532; Dennett et at. v. City of
Sheboygan, 1914, 14 R. G. 634.
Establishment of minimum charges in particular cases.
17. Minimum charges for water service were established in the fol-
lowing cases: City of Ripon v. Ripon Lt. <Sc W. Co., 1910, 5 R. G. 1; /n re
Appl. Peoples W. Lt. & P. Co., 1912, 10 R. G. 651; In re Appl. City of
Viroqua, 1913, 11 R. G. 330; In re Appl. Village of Elkhart Lake, 1913,
11 R. G. 690; In re Appl. New Glarus Lt. <fc W. Plant, 1913, 11 R. G. 711;
In re Appl. Fennimore Mun. W. & Lt. Plant, 1913, 12 R. G. 194; In re
Appl. City of Sparta, 1913, 12 R. G. 532; Town of Vaughn v. Hurley W. Co.,
1914, 14 R. G. 291; In re Appl. Oconomowoc Water Dept., 1914, 14 R. G.
381; Kittleson et al. v. Elroy Mun. W. & Lt. Plant, 1914, 14 R. G. 485;
Dennett et al. v. City of Sheboygan, 1914, 14 R. G. 634; Hughes et al. u.
Watertown W. Wks., 1914, 14 R. G. 669; In re Park Falls Mun. W. Wks.,
1914, 15 R. G. 284; In re Invest. Waterloo Mun. W. & El. Plant, 1914,
15 R. G. 534.
Reasonableness of minimum charge.
18. Reasonableness of rule that one minimum rate shall be charged
for the water for each flat in a flat building and each suite of offices in an
office building. Dick et al. v. Madison Water Comm., 1910, 5 R. G. 731,
772.
Reduction of the quantity of water allowed under the minimum
charge.
19. In re Appl. Madison City W. Wks., 3 R. G. 299.
Variation in minimum charge with size of meter.
20. A minimum bill which is the same, regardless of the size of the
meter, would ignore the fact that the investment is large or small according
to the size of the meter, or if made an average amount would discriminate
against the consumers who use the small sizes. City of Ripon v. Ripon
Lt <Sc W. Co., 1910, 5 R. G. 1, 84; Dick et al. v. Madison Water Comm.,
1910, 5 R. G. 731, 766.
MINIMUM FARES.
See Rates — Street Railway, 13.
MINIMUM LOADING REQUIREMENT.
See Weights.
MINIMUM RATES.
See Rates; Minimum Gharges.
Monopoly 157
MINIMUM SERVICE.
When required.
1. Certain minimum service must be performed by common carrier
regardless of financial condition and amount of return. Leonard et al. v.
W. C. R. Co., 1907, 1 R. C. 724.
MINIMUM WATER LEVEL.
Establishment of maximum and minimum water level, see Navigable
Waters, 4.
MINIMUM WEIGHTS.
See Weights.
MISTAKE.
Mistake in quoting rate, no excuse for departure from published rate, see
Schedules or Tariffs, 9.
MIXED CARLOAD.
Reasonableness of rate on shipment of mixed carload of grain, see Rates —
Railroad, 241.
MIXTURES.
Carload rates on mixtures, see Rates — Railroad, 14.
MONOPOLY.
Capitalization of estimated monopoly profits, see Valuation, 33.
Contracts due to monopoly conditions in telephone business, see Con-
tracts, 7.
Monopolistic nature of exclusive franchises to operate public utilities,
see Franchises, 11.
Monopoly privilege cannot be justly capitalized as against consumers,
see Valuation, 33.
Monopoly privilege under indeterminate permit, see Indeterminate
Permit, 6.
Monopoly value as element in valuation, see Valuation, 28-36.
Prevention of monopoly of natural resources as element considered in
making railroad rates, see Rates — Railroad, 144.
as matter considered in determining reasonableness of railroad rates,
see Rates — Railroad, 190.
158 Monopoly. — Public uiilities
PUBLIC UTILITIES.
Monopolistic character of public utilities, competition not an effective
regulator in public utilities field, see Competition, 1.
Power of monopoly in making rates.
L Public utilities are monopolistic in their nature. In the absence
of public regulation the prices of the services rendered by them are usually
fixed at what the traffic will bear. When not regulated by law or public
authorities, the rates may be fixed without much of any reference to what,
under the circumstances, may be reasonable returns. Hill et al. v. Aniigo
Water Co., 1909, 3 R. C. 623, 707-708.
Theory of Public Utilities Law as to monopolistic character of
utility enterprises,
2. It is well understood that the theory of the ^Public Utilities Law
is, that utility enterprises are generally monopolistic in their character.
This theory was not extended to include telephone companies. These
alone are left in a class by themselves, supposed to be governed by the
ordinary laws of competition. Payne et al. v. Wis. Tel. Co., 1909, 4 R. C.
1, 60.
» For effect of Anti-duplication Law (ch. 610, 1913), see Telephone Utilities, 9-25.
MORTGAGE CERTIFICATE LAW.
See Public Utilities Law.
MOTOR BOAT.
Reasonableness of rate on motor boat, see Rates — Railroad, 259.
MOTOR CARS.
Use of gasoline motor car in place of steam passenger train, ste Train
Service, 18. '
MOVEMENT EXPENSES.
Apportionment of movement expenses in the determination of unit costs
for interurban railways, see Accounting, 77.
for railroads, see Accounting, 131.
As element considered in making express rates, see Rates — Express, 3.
railroad rates, see Rates — Railroad, 131-134.
MUNICIPAL ACQUISITION OF PUBLIC UTILITIES.
Compensation for property of public utilities in cases of municipal ac-
quisition, see Electric Utilities, 4-11; Water Utilities, 13-14.
1. In case of municipal acquisition of a public utility the municipality
is required to purchase only that portion of the property actually used and
Municipalities 159
useful for the convenience of the pubUc. In re Appl. Village of Cashton,
1908, 2 R. C. 677, 691; In re Cashion Lt. & P. Co., 1908, 3 R. C. 67, 80.
2. MunicipaUty must acquire plant as well as business of existing
utility. City of Neenah v. Wis. Tr. Lt. Ht. & P. Co., 1915, 15 R. G. 626.
MUNICIPAL EQUIPMENT RENTAL.
Apportionment of municipal equipment rental in the determination of
unit costs, for electric utilities, see Accounting, 23.
MUNICIPAL OWNERSHIP.
Eifect of municipal ownership.
1. If the city owned the water works it is possible that, by pledging
all of its taxable property as well as its powers of taxation, the city could
have obtained the capital required for the construction of the water works
at a somewhat lower rate of interest than the rate at which the capital
for the present plant was obtained. It is also possible that the city in
operating its own plant could keep down the executive salaries to a slightly
lower figure than the salaries now paid by the existing company. When
it comes to the remaining expenses that enter into the cost of the service,
however, the situation in this respect is likely to be reversed. While
municipal operation is more successful in the case of water works than in
the case of other public utilities, it is more than likely that the increase
in the other operating expenses under such operation would fully offset
the decrease in the fixed charges. In re Invest. Ashland Water Co., 1914,
14 R. C. 721, 736, 737.
MUNICIPALITIES.
See also Cities; Towns; Villages.
Abandonment of any line of street railway, common council has exclusive
jurisdiction to authorize, see Street Railways, 9.
Complaint against public utility. Commission has no jurisdiction when filed
• in behalf of a municipality, but without express authority from the
municipality, see Railroad Commission, 34.
Elections for municipal acquisition of public utility, validity of, see Water
Utilities, 18.
Electric utilities, municipal acquisition of, see Electric Utilities, 4-15.
Estoppel against municipal corporations, see Estoppel, 1.
Indebtedness, capacity of city to incur, see Water Utilities, 16.
Indeterminate permit, necessity of grant by municipality, see Indeter-
minate Permit, 1.
Municipal council, jurisdiction over service furnished by public utility,
see Electric Utilities, 1-2, 44.
procedure upon municipal acquisition of public utility, regularity of,
see Electric Utilities, 12; Water Utilities, 15-19.
without authority to compel street railway companies to make ex-
tensions or additions to line in the absence of statutory or
charter provisions, see Street Railways, 17.
160 Municipalities
Ordinance of municipality affecting rates or service of public utilities,
reasonableness of ordinance within purview of Public Utilities Law,
review by Commission, see Railroad Commission, 130.
regulating street railway service, superseded by power subsequently
conferred upon the Railroad Commission by law, see Railroad
Commission, 144.
Police power of municipality, ordinance requiring removal of poles and
wires of electric utility, grounds for exercise of power, see Electric
Utilities, 2.
ordinance requiring removal of telephone poles from street, conditions,
prescribed in ordinance not a proper exercise of the police
power delegated to a municipality, see Telephone Utili-
ties, 2.
power of municipality to regulate location of poles within the streets
or other public places, see Telephone Utilities, 3-4.
Public service corporations, control of, by municipal councils, see Public
Service Corporations, 1.
Public utiUties, control of, by municipal councils, see Public Service
Corporations, 1.
municipal acquisition of, see Electric Utilities, 4-15; Water
Utilities, 13-19.
municipal acquisition of, municipality is required to purchase only
that portion of the property actually used and useful for the
convenience of the public, see Public Utilities Law, 9-10.
municipality cannot acquire business of existing utility without also
acquiring the plant, see Public Utilities Law, 11.
Speed of trains, regulation of speed within a municipality, see Railroads,
31.
Telephone franchise, authority to operate a telephone utility derived
from the state and not the municipality, see Franchises, 15.
Telephone poles, power of municipaUty to regulate location of poles
within the streets or other public places, see Telephone Utili-
ties, 3-4.
Town board, authority over highway and railroad crossing, town super-
visors the judges under the statute of the necessity for a highway,
see Railroads, 7.
petition of, as condition precedent to jurisdiction of Commission
over railroad crossings, see Railroad Commission, 77.
proceedings of, in laying out highway for railroad crossing, validity
of proceedings, question for courts, see Railroad Com-
mission, 75.
Village board, petition of village board, as condition precedent to juris-
diction of Commission over railroad crossings, see Railroad
Commission, 77.
Water mains, reasonableness of municipal ordinance requiring extension
of water mains, see Water Utilities, 8-9.
Water utilities, municipal acquisition of, see Water Utilities, 13-19.
Navigable Waters. — Regulation of level and flow of 161
NAILS, STAPLES, BARB WIRE AND WIRE FENCING.
Reasonableness of rates on nails, staples and wire, see Rates — Railroad,
297.
NAVIGABLE WATERS.
See also Water Powers.
Jurisdiction of Commission over obstructions in navigable streams, see
Railroad Commission, 64.
over river improvements, see Railroad Commission, 97.
I. ACCESS TO NAVIGABLE WATERS.
II. REGULATION OF LEVEL AND FLOW OF WATER.
I. ACCESS TO NAVIGABLE WATERS.
Interference with access by construction of a railroad grade.
1. It was alleged that the construction of the new grade of the
C. B. & Q. R. Co. along the Mississippi river in front of the village of
De Soto, Vernon county, has cut off the village from access to the river
for navigation purposes. Held: The Commission has no authority to
take action to prevent interference with the access of the residents of the
village to the river. The complaint is dismissed. Andrew et al. v.
C. B. <fc Q. R. Co,, 1913, 12 R. C. 567.
II. REGULATION OF LEVEL AND FLOW OF WATER.
Constitutionality of law.
2. Since the hearing in the present case, the supreme court of Wis-
consin in the Water Power Cases, 1912, 148 Wis. 124, has held that these
sections as well as all other sections of the statute referred to, known as
the Water Power Act, except sec. 1596, are unconstitutional. Sec.
1596 relates only to the necessity for a permit from the legislature to
construct dams and has no relation to the present case. Law et al. v.
Darlington EL Lt. Sc P. Co., 1912, 10 R. C. 380, 381-382.
Gates in dam to control level and flow.
3. The Northwestern Iron Co. was ordered to construct a gate in
the dam in question with a clear opening 27 feet in length and to dredge
the bottom of the river upon the upstream side of such gate to a level at
least as low as the bottom of the gate to be constructed. The maximum
height of the water permitted by the dam in question shall not exceed
6 inches above the top of the present spillway, and when such height is
reached the Northwestern Iron Co. shall open the gate to allow the water
to escape. In re Reg. of Flow of Rock River in Mayville, 1915, 15 R. C.
698.
162 Navigable Waters. — Regulation of level and flow of
Maximum and minimum level — Establishment of.
4. The maximum and minimum level of water was established in
the following cases: In re High Water Mark on Rest Lake Reservoir,
1914, 15 R. C. 438; In re Reg. of Flow of Rock River in Mayville, 1915,
15 R. C. 698; In re Reg. Level of Water on Long Lake, 1915, 15 R. G. 708.
Obstruction in stream.
5. The Commission finds: 1, That Rock river in the city of Janes-
ville is a navigable stream. 2. That the river is navigated by row boats,
niotorboats, and other water craft. 3. That the piers and other structures
delineated upon the map on file at the office of the Commission constitute
obstructions to navigation and to the natural flow of the water in the
stream and have a tendency to narrow the channel of the stream. 4. That
in case of very high water, logs, lumber, wood and drift coming down
the stream are likely to lodge against such obstructions, preventing the
free passage of the water through the natural channel and thereby causing
injury and damage to property within the city of Janesville. The
legality of the maintenance of the obstructions in question is not passed
upon. In re Obstructions in the Rock River at Janesville, 1914, 14 R. C.
190.
6. The Commission finds: 1. That Beaver Dam creek or Beaver
Dam river in the city of Beaver Dam between the Upper Woolen Mill
dam and the Cotton Mill dam is a navigable stream. 2. That the stream is
navigated by small boats used for fishing and pleasure, and for the
repairing of buildings which extend over the submerged land. 3. That
buildings encroaching upon the stream as indicated upon the map con-
tained in the record herein constitute obstructions to such navigation.
The legality of the maintenance of the obstructions in question is not
passed upon. In re Petition Paramount P. & Realty Co., 1914, 14 R. C.
474.
Regulation of height of dam.
7. The requirement of ch. 189, laws of 1907, as to the construction
and maintenance of the dam in question at eighteen feet is no longer
necessary from the standpoint of navigation, or of the public safety,
and should be dispensed with until the Commission, upon investigation
had, should require such restriction to be replaced. In re Appl. Wis.
River Power Co., 1914, 15 R. C. 471.
River improvements — Dredging.
8. The Commission has power to regulate all river improvements
so as to conserve all public rights in the rivers, promote the improvement
of navigation and protect life, health and property, but has no jurisdiction
over the authorization of contractors to do work or over their dealings
with private parties. Freeholders, etc., of Dodge County v. McWilliams,
1914, 13 R. C. 603.
NECESSITY.
See Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity.
Notice 163
NEEDS OF SHIPPER.
As element considered in making railroad rates, see Rates — Railroad,
142.
NESTING.
Definition of nesting, see Rates — Railroad, 174-175.
NIGHT SERVICE.
Provision for night telephone service, see Telephone Utilities, 46.
NONSTOCKHOLDERS.
Different rates for stockholders and nonstockholders prohibited, see
Discrimination, 90.
NONSUBSCRIBERS.
Rates for nonsubscriber messages, see Rates — Telephone, 38-40.
NORMAL COSTS.
As matter considered in determining reasonableness of electric rates,
see Rates — Electric, 20, 69.
NOTICE.
Reasonable notice to be given of change in street railway time schedules.
Gillett V. T. M. E. R. & L. Co. et al, 1907, 1 R. C. 689, 698, 711.
Time of giving notice of intention to purchase public utility, see Electric
Utilities, 15.
Constructive notice — Facts putting on inquiry.
1. The rule seems to be well established that where a purchaser has
knowledge of any fact sufficient to put a prudent man upon inquiry,
which, if prosecuted with ordinary diligence, would lead to actual notice
of some right or title in conflict with that he is about to purchase, it is
his duty to make the inquiry and if he does not make it, he is guilty of
bad faith or negligence to such an extent that the law will presume that
he made it, and will charge him with the actual notice he would have
received if he made it. {Parker v. Kane, 1854, 4 Wis. 1 ; Cambridge Valley
Bank v. Delano, 1872, 48 N. Y. 326; Brinkman v. Jones, 1878, 44 Wis.
498, 519; Wade on Notice, sec. 10 et seq.) Eden Ind. Lime and Stone
Co. v. C. & N. W. R. Co., 1910, 5 R. G. 110. 112.
164 Nuisance
NUISANCE.
Water power dams, when considered public nuisance, see Water Powers, 1 .
Commission without power to abate nuisance.
1. Stresen-Reufer ei al. v. C.ScN. W. R. Co., 1912, 9 R. C.394; Andrew
et al. V. C. B. & Q. R. Co., 1913. 12 R. C. 567.
NUMBER OF PACKAGES.
As matter considered in determining reasonableness of rates for express
companies, see Rates — Express, 8.
OATS.
Reasonableness of rates on oats, see Rates— Railroad, 241.
OBSOLESCENCE.
As element in depreciation, see Depreciation, 6.
OBSOLETE EQUIPMENT.
As matter considered in valuation of public utilities, see Valuation, 152.
OBSTRUCTIONS IN STREAM.
See Navigable Waters, 5-6.
OBSTRUCTIONS TO VIEW.
Removal of obstructions to view for protection of railroad crossings, see
Railroads, 32.
OFFICIALS.
Jurisdiction of Commission.
1. The Commission has no jurisdiction over relations between utility
officials, unless such relations impair the service or create unreasonable
rates. Pospichal et al. v. Muscoda Mut. Tel. Co., 1915, 15 R. C. 578, 579.
"OFF PEAK" OR LIMITED SERVICE.
Rates for limited electric service, see Rates — Electric, 19.
OIL.
Granting of transit privileges to shippers of oil in barrels in carload lots,
see Transit Privileges, 3.
qre_^ 165
OIL GAS.
Standards of service for oil gas, see Gas Utilities, 11.
ONIONS.
Establishment of concentration rate on cucumbers and onions, see Rates —
Railroad, 34.
Reasonableness of rates on onions and cucumbers, see Rates — Rail-
road, 261.
OPERATING EXPENSES.
Operating expense accounts of public utilities and railroads, see Account-
ing.
OPERATING RECORDS.
Importance of operating records, see Electric Utilities, 27-28.
OPERATION.
Details of operation of railroad company is usually left to the manage-
ment of the company, see Railroads, 63-64.
OPERATION OF TRAINS.
See Train Service.
OPTIONAL TOLL RATES.
See Rates — ^Telephone, 77,
ORDERS OF COMMISSION.
Duty of Commission to issue an order fixing regulations when it deter-
mines that the service or rates are unreasonable, see Railroad
Commission, 22-24.
Judicial review of orders of Commission, question of unreasonableness or
unlawfulness of order, see Railroad Commission, 108-109.
ORDINANCE.
Municipal ordinance, see Municipalities.
ORE.
Reasonableness of rates on iron, lead and zinc ore, see Rates — Rail-
road, 262-264.
166 Origindl Cost
ORIGINAL COST.
As element in valuation of public utilities, see Valuation, 117-118, 159.
"OTHER LINE" CHARGES.
"Other line" charges for telephone service, see Rates — ^Telephone, 41.
OUNCE RATES.
Ounce rates for express matter, see Rates — Express, 16.
OUTAGE.
Provision for outage in street lighting, see Rates — Electric, 95.
OUTPUT COSTS.
As element considered in making rates for electric utilities, see Rates —
Electric, 34.
for gas utilities, see Rates — Gas, 6.
for water utilities, see Rates — Water, 40-46.
OUTPUT EXPENSES.
Apportionment of output expenses in the determination of unit costs for
electric utilities, see Accounting, 8.
for gas utilities, see Accounting, 44.
for heating utilities, see Accounting, 63.
for water utilities, see Accounting, 174-175.
OUTSIDE CONSUMERS.
Requirement that outside consumers of a municipal electric utility fur-
nish part of facilities incident to the service not necessarily an un-
just discrimination, see Discrimination, 27.
Rates for outside consumers of a municipal utility.
1. Consumers of a municipally owned utility who are located outside
the limits of the municipality stand in much the same relation to the
utility as they would if it were a private enterprise and so long as the rate
charged them is fair they cannot complain of discrimination against them
merely because that rate is slightly higher than the rate charged residents
of the municipality. In re Appl. Ft. Atkinson W. & Lt. Comm., 1913,
12 R. C. 260; Douglas et al. v. Equitable El. Lt. Co., 1913, 12 R. C. 337;
1914, 14 R. C. 381; In re Ap^pl. Richland Center EL Lt. & W. Plant, 1914,
14 R. C. 590, 592.
Parties to Action 167
OVERCHARGES.
See Reparation.
OVERHEAD CONNECTIONS.
See Switch Connections; Street Railways.
OVERHEAD EXPENSES.
Apportionment of overhead expenses in the determination of unit costs of
electric utilities, see Accounting, 19.
of gas utihties, see Accounting, 50.
of interurban railways, see Accounting, 70.
of street railways, see Accounting, 144.
Overhead expenses during construction as element in the valuation of
public utilities, see Valuation, 103-106.
OVERLOADED LINES.
See Telephone Utilities, 47.
OVERLOADING.
See Excess Loading.
PACKAGE FREIGHT.
Carrying of package freight on interurban passenger cars, see Interurban
Railways, 17.
Reasonableness of minimum charge on package freight, see Rates — Rail-
road, 173.
PACKAGES.
Number of packages as matter considered in determining reasonableness
of rates for express companies, see Rates — Express, 8.
PAPER.
Reasonableness of rates on paper, see Rates — Railroad, 265.
PARTIES TO ACTION.
Person aggrieved must complain.
1. Commission without authority to decide upon the merits of com-
plaints against lawful charges unless such complaints are brought by the
person aggrieved. Wausau Adv. Assn. v. C. & N. W. R. Co., 1914, 13 R. C.
772.
168 Parties to Action
Must signify intention.
2. Complaint of carrier dismissed on ground that the successors to
the property and rights of the petitioner had not signified their intention
of becoming parties to the action. Cazenovia Sc Sauk City R. Co. v. C. Sc
N, W. R. Co., 1914, 13 R. G. 744
PARTY LINE RATES.
Party line rates in telephone service, see Rates — ^Telephone, 42-43,
PARTY LINES.
Failure to keep party telephone lines full results in unjust discrimination,
see Discrimination, 93.
PASSENGER CARS.
Adequacy of, see Interurban Railways, 9; Street Railways, 33-34.
PASSENGER RATES.
See Rates — Railroad, 266.
PASSENGER SERVICE.
See Train Service.
PASSENGERS.
Carrying of passengers free of charge unlawful, see Rates — Railroad, 50.
Station accommodations, see Station Facilities.
Train service, see Train Service.
PASSENGER TRAFFIC.
Relation between freight and passenger traffic as element considered in
making railroad rates, see Rates — Railroad, 148.
PATENT RIGHTS.
As element in valuation of public utilities, see Valuation, 62.
PATTERNS.
Reasonableness of rates on foundry patterns, see Rates — Railroad, 239.
PAVING.
Allowance for cost of paving in the valuation of property of public utili-
ties, when the cost was not actually incurred, see Valuation, 107.
Rate of depreciation of paving constructed by street railway company,
see Depreciation, 37.
Petroleum Products 169
PAVING BLOCKS.
Reasonableness of rates on stone paving blocks, see Rates — Railroad,
286.
PAYMENT OF RATES.
Regulation as to payment of rates for services rendered by public utilities,
see Rules and Regulations, 7-30, 41.
PAY STATION.
Installation of telephone pay station in railroad station, see Station
Facilities, 33-34.
"PAY WEIGHT."
As element considered in making railroad rates, see Rates — Railroad,
138-139, 151-152.
As matter considered in determining reasonableness of railroad rates, see
Rates — Railroad, 194.
Proportion of "pay weight" in carload as compared to less than carload
freight, see Rates — Railroap. 12.
PEAS.
Reasonableness of rates on peas, see Rates — Railroad, 267.
PENALTIES.
Regulation as to payment of rates for services rendered by pubHc utility,
provision for penalties, see Rules and Regulations, 14-18, 20.
PETITION.
Proceedings before Commission, rehearing upon original petition sub-
sequent to vacation of order by court, see Procedure, 11.
Sufficiency of petition, withdrawal of names prior to the hearing leaving
less than the required number, question of sufficiency not decided,
see Procedure, 7.
PETROLEUM PRODUCTS.
Reasonableness of rates on petroleum products, see Rates — Railroad,
268.
170 Physical Connection. — Railroads
PHYSICAL CONNECTION.
, RAILROADS.
Railroad connections at crossings, etc., within town, village or city, see
Connecting Carriers, 1-4; Switch Connections, 13.
TELEPHONE UTILITIES.
Physical connection, establishment of, conditions precedent, see Tele-
phone Utilities, 31.
in particular cases, see Telephone Utilities, 38-39.
statutory requirements, see Telephone Utilities, 32-37.
terms and conditions of joint use, see Telephone Utilities, 41.
Right of telephone company to refuse connection with grounded lines, see
Telephone Utilities, 40.
PHYSICAL DATA.
Physical data, importance of, see Electric Utilities, 28.
PHYSICAL PROPERTY.
As element in the valuation of public utilities, see Valuation, 63-128.
Determination of the value of physical property of pubhc utilities, see
Valuation, 145-160.
PICK-UP AND DELIVERY SERVICE.
Express companies, pick-up and delivery service, adequacy of, see Express
Companies, 2.
Express companies, pick-up and delivery service — Free service
limits.
1. Sec. 1798 of the statutes fixes free delivery district of the United
States post office department as the minimum area in which express com-
panies must call for and deliver express. Heineman Lbr. Co. v. Wells Fargo
Exp. Co., 1914, 13 R. C. 594, 596.
PIECEMEAL CONSTRUCTION.
As matter considered in the valuation of public utilities, see Valuation,
153.
PINE TRIMMINGS.
Reasonableness of rates on pine trimmings or material of analogous char-
acter, see Rates — Railroad, 270.
Posts 171
PLATFORM.
Erection of platform suitable for the loading and unloading of various
articles, and for accommodation of passengers, see Station Fa-
cilities, 20.
POLES.
Reasonableness of rates on poles, see Rates — Railroad, 271.
Telephone poles, power of municipality to regulate location of poles within
the street ,or other public places, see Telephone Utilities, 3-4.
POLES AND WIRES.
Ordinance requiring removal of poles and wires of electric utility, reason-
ableness of ordinance, see Electric Utilities, 2.
' POLICE POWER.
Police power of municipaUty, ordinance requiring removal of poles and
wires of electric utility, grounds for exercise of power, see Electric
Utilities, 2.
ordinance requiring removal of telephone poles from street, conditions
prescribed in ordinance not a proper exercise of the police
power delegated to a municipality, see Telephone Utili-
ties, 2.
power to regulate location of poles within the streets or other public
places, see Telephone Utilities, 3-4.
Police power over special train service.
1. The excursion train is a special form of service which the railroad
is not compelled to furnish and which, if it does furnish, is wholly within
its discretion as to time and extent of the service, subject only to the
general police power of the state with respect to public health, safety, or
equal rights. Hughson et al. v. D. S. S. & A. R. Co., 1915, 15 R. G. 599,
604.
POSTING OF RATE SCHEDULES.
Publication of rates, charges, and conditions connected therewith, see
Schedules or Tariffs, 11-16.
POSTS.
Reasonableness of rates on posts, see Rates — Railroad, 272.
172 Potatoes
POTATOES.
Agreement changing division of joint rate on potatoes between W. G. B.
R. Co. and G. B. & W. R. Co., see Rates — Railroad, 70.
Establishment of joint rates on potatoes, see Rates — Railroad, 88.
Reasonableness of rates on potatoes, see Rates — Railroad, 273.
POTATO PLANTERS.
Classification under agricultural implements, see Rates — Railroad, 200
POWER EXPENSES.
Apportionment of power expenses in the determination of unit costs for
electric utilities, see Accounting, 24.
for interurban railways, see Accounting, 71.
for street railways, see Accounting, 145.
POWER GENERATION EXPENSES.
Apportionment of power generation expenses in the determination of unit
costs for electric utilities, see Accounting, 25.
POWER RATES.
See Rates — Electric.
"PRACTICALLY INDISPENSAjBLE."
Definition of term.
1. The meaning of the statutory term "practically indispensable"
may be deduced from the definitions of terms which have been construed
by the courts. Courts have defined the word "necessary" and from its
construction we can deduce the proper meaning of "indispensable." Neces-
sity is recognized as a matter of degree. A thing may be necessary,
more necessary and indispensably necessary. (Cotton et al. v. The Co.
Commissioners, 1856, 6 Fla. 629.) When a thing is necessary, therefore,
it may be merely "convenient or profitable," or it may be "indispensable
to the accomplishment of a purpose." (St. Louis R. R. Co. v. Trustees
1867, 43 111. 307.) In other words, "indispensable" is recognized as the
superlative of "necessary." To define necessary in its most rigid sense,
would be to say it is synonymous with indispensable — that without
which a certain purpose cannot be acQomplished. Webster's definition is
"absolutely necessary or requisite," "impossible to be remitted or spared."
Hurst V. N. P. R. Co., 1909, 3 R. G. 283, 286-287.
PRACTICE.
See Procedure.
Privileges 173
PREFERENCE OF PREJUDICE.
See Discrimination.
PRESCRIPTIVE RIGHTS.
Prescriptive rights to flood land — Right must be proved.
1. The existence of prescriptive rights to flood the land upon which
reserved rights to affect this result are not held, is disputed by the applicant
and in the absence of sufTicient proof we must presume that such rights
do not exist. Where some lands bordering bodies of water are burdened
with flowage rights while other lands are not, the latter parcels are entitled
to protection from flooding and the claim that the majority of the land is
burdened with flowage privileges does not impair the right to such pro-
tection. In re Reg. Level of Water on Long Lake, 1915, 15 R. G. 708, 710.
*
PRESENT VALUE.
Determination of present value of public utilities, see Valuation, 160.
Present value of physical property as matter considered in the valuation
of public utilities, see Valuation, 119-121.
PRICES.
Unit prices in determination of value of public utilities, see Valuation,
68-70, 154-156.
PRINT PAPER.
Reasonableness of rates on print paper, see Rates — Railroad, 265.
PRIVATE CARS.
Railroad company not a common carrier of private cars, see Train Serv-
ice, 19.
PRIVATE HIGHWAY.
Operation of spur track as a private highway, see Railroads, 76.
PRIVATE SIDETRACKS.
See Switch Connections.
PRIVILEGES.
See Transit Privileges.
174 Procedure. — Proceedings before Commission
PROCEDURE.
See also Railroad Commission.
PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION.
Complaint against carrier for reparation.
1. According to the usual practice of the Commission the matter of
refunds is determined in a separate proceeding based upon a formal peti-
tion therein. Duluth-Superior Millg. Co. v. N. P. R. Co., 1911, 7 R. C.
459, 461-462.
Complaint by an individual under the Public Utilities Law.
2. The complaint of an individual consumer does not give the Com-
mission jurisdiction. In re Invest. Hudson Water Wks., 1908, 3 R. C. 138.
Complaint by any body politic, society, organization, etc., under
the Public Utilities Law.
3. Under the Public Utilities Law a complaint can be made by "any-
mercantile, agricultural or manufacturing society or by any body politic,
or municipal organization or by any twenty-five persons, firms, corpora-
tions or associations." In re Invest. Hudson Water Wks., 1908, 3 R. C. 138.
4. It is only mercantile, agricultural and manufacturing societies,
bodies politic and municipal corporations that, acting individually, can
invoke the jurisdiction of the Commission. (Wisconsin Statutes, sec.
1797/72-43.) National Travelers' Assn. of Amer. v. Wis. Tel. Co., 1910,
5 R. C. 678, 690.
Continuance — Motion for continuance of hearing on an applica-
tion for a certificate of public convenience and necessity.
5. A motion is made for a continuance of the hearing on an application
of the Milwaukee Lt. Ht. & Tr. Co. for a certificate of public convenience
and necessity, for the apparent purpose of enabling a competing company
to file an application in order that both companies may be granted a
certificate. Held: that the fact that some competing company may in
the future file an application paralleling the proposed route, can have no
effect on whether public convenience and necessity require the construc-
tion of the proposed line. Motion for continuance is denied. In re Appl.
Milwaukee Lt. Ht. <Sc Tr. Co., 1909, 3 R. C. 288, 292.
Decisions or orders of Commission.
6. Under both the law and the practice no decisions are issued or
orders made by this Commission except in formal proceedings. In re
Manitowoc W. Wks. Co., 1911, 7 R. C. 71, 72.
Institution of proceedings, withdrawal of names.
7. The question of the sufficiency of a petition where names are with-
drawn prior to hearing leaving less than the required number, is not passed
upon for the reason that the application of the utility covers the matters
complained of. In re Platteville, Hewey Sc Ellenboro Tel. Co., 1911, 7 R. C.
608,610.
Procedure. — Proceedings before Commission 175
Intention of utility to present a new schedule at some future date.
8. The Commission cannot withhold action upon a complaint with
respect to rates charged by the lessee of a utility plant merely because it
is the intention of the owner of the utility plant to present another schedule
of rates at some future date when he reassumes control of the property.
In re Appl. Village of Withee, 1914, 13 R. G. 704, 706.
Petition by individuals for separation of grades at a railroad
crossing.
9. Sec. 1797-12e of the statutes requires a petition for a separation
of grades to be lodged by the common council of a city, the village board
of a village, the town board of a town or by a railway company, and the
Commission has no jurisdiction in such proceedings when instituted by an
individual. Rueckert et al. v. C. M. & St. P. R. Co., 1914, 13 R. C. 749, 750.
Rehearing.
10. A prayer for a rehearing in the case of Fullmer v. Wausau Street
Railroad Co., 1909, 3 R. C. 520, and for the suspension of the order of
the Commission pending the decision in the rehearing proceedings,
was made on the ground that the data before the Commission were not
sufficiently complete to enable it to arrive at a correct conclusion. Held:
that if the allegations of the respondent company can be sustained, a
modification of the order must necessarily follow. A rehearing is ordered
and the aforesaid order of the Commission is suspended pending the
decision in the rehearing proceedings. Fullmer v. Wausau Street R. Co.,
1909, 3 R. C. 555, 556.
Rehearing upon original petition subsequent to vacation of order
by court.
11. The present proceeding for a rehearing was instituted subsequent
to the vacation of the original order of the Commission by the court.
A new petition in the matter was filed in order to bring the matter properly
before the Commission and to obviate any possible objection that might
be interposed to the Commission's proceeding to re-hear the matter
upon the original petition in the absence of any expfess statutory enact-
ment providing for such rehearing. Eden Ind. Lime Sc Stone Co. v.
C. & N. W. R. Co., 1911. 7 R. C. 140. 146.
Rehearing while court review of order of Commission pending.
12. We do not deem it advisable to encourage the practice of granting
rehearings after actions have been brought to alter or amend orders of
the Commission. The procedure for reviewing orders of the Commission
should be prosecuted in the manner provided in the statutes after action
has once been commenced. In re Appl. Kaukauna G. El. Lt. & P. Co.,
1913, 12 R. C. 189, 190.
Relief must be pursued in manner prescribed by statute.
13. An injured shipper, in order to obtain relief in a reparation case,
must pursue his remedy in the manner prescribed by the statute. He is
not permitted to sleep upon his rights until his remedy is barred and
176 Procedure. — Proceedings before Commission
then seek to enforce the same. Pulpwood Co. of Appleton v. M. St. P. &
S. S. M. R. Co. et al, 1910, 6 R. C. 175, 177; So. Milwaukee Fuel Sz Supply
Co.v. C. dc N. W. R. Co., 1912, 8 R. C. 473, 476.
PROFITS.
See Return.
PROPERTY ACQUIRED THROUGH GIFT.
As element in the valuation of public utilities, see Valuation, 109.
PROPERTY RIGHTS.
Compensation for private property upon municipal acquisition, see
Eminent Domain, 1-2.
Franchises, no good ground upon which the value of exclusive franchises
should become private property, see Franchises, 11-12.
Impairment of constitutional guarantees of property rights, rights not
impaired by requirements of law providing for physical connection
of telephone utilities, see Telephone Utilities, 36.
Operation of railroads at pecuniary loss, duty to operate, see Railroads,
85-90.
Operation of street railways at pecuniary loss, duty to operate, see Street
Railways, 19-20.
Property employed in public or quasi public enterprises, owner entitled
to reasonable return, see Return, 2, 4-5.
Protection of property rights, in the establishment of physical connection
for telephone utilities, see Telephone Utilities, 33.
Public property, reservation of exclusive franchise values for the public,
see Franchises, 12.
Rights acquired under indeterminate permit, see Indeterminate Per-
mit, 6.
PROPORTIONAL RATES.
See Rates — Railroad, 177.
Unjustly discriminatory proportional rate ordered discontinued, see
Discrimination, 80.
PRORATING OF EXPENSES.
See Accounting, 34, 62, 68, 88, 137, 150.
PROTECTED WIRES.
Permissible to collect special installation charge for protected telephone
wires, see Rates — Telephone, 44.
Public Hearing 177
PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND COMFORT.
Stopping an interstate train for public convenience and comfort at a
station adequately served by other trains, would be undue inter-
ference with interstate commerce, see Train Service, 20.
PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY.
See also Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity.
Railroads, equipment should be operated so long as public convenience
and necessity demand its use, see Warehouses, 3.
Public convenience and necessity of construction of railroad crossing,
see Railroads, 12.
of union station, see Station Facilities, 38-39.
Telephone utilities, changing of toll station into a rural station, public
convenience and necessity of, see Telephone Utilities, 12.
establishment of checking station, public convenience and necessity
of, see Telephone Utilities, 5.
extension of lines, public convenience and necessity of, see Telephone
Utilities, 23.
physical connection, public convenience and necessity of, see Tele-
phone Utilities, 37.
Track connections, public convenience and necessity of, see Switch
Connections, 14-18.
Definition of.
1. The term "public convenience and necessity" is indeterminate.
It is usually found in statutes requiring some act to be performed or
creating some new public obhgation not imposed by the common law,
which interferes with private rights. As a justification for such inter-
ference there must be a public exigency demanding it, which is always a
question of fact depending upon a variety of considerations. Winter v.
La Crosse Tel. Co. et al., 1913, 11 R. C. 748, 756.
2. In the case Winter v. La Crosse Tel. Co. et al., 1913, 11 R. C. 748,
it was stated, in substance, that to justify the public obligation usually
imposed by "public convenience and necessity" there must be present
some imperative public exigency. It is inevitable in such a situation
as that at Janesville that the aggregate loss of time, inconvenience and
annoyance through the absence of such physical connection as is here
requested must be great, and the conclusion is equally inevitable that
a public exigency demands physical connection. McGowan v. Rock
County Tel. Co. et al., 1914, 14 R. C. 529, 537.
PUBLIC CORPORATIONS.
See Cities; Municipalities; Towns; Villages.
PUBLIC HEARING
Commission not required to hold public hearing in dealers' license cases,
see License, 1.
178 ' Public Nuisance
PUBLIC NUISANCE.
Water power dams, when considered a public nuisance, see Water
Powers, 1.
PUBLIC POLICY.
Contracts due to monopoly conditions, may be contrary to public policy,
see Contracts, 7.
Contracts for public utility service, under what conditions they may be
declared void as against public policy, see Rates — Electric, 4.
Public policy with respect to prevention of monopoly of natural resource
as element considered, in making railroad rates, see Rates — -
Railroad, 144.
as matter considered in determining reasonableness of railroad rates,
see Rates — Railroad, 190.
Rate wars between competing utilities contrary to public policy, see
Rates — Electric, 61.
PUBLIC SERVICE CONTRACTS.
Waiver of right to damages under public service contracts, see Con-
tracts, 8.
PUBLIC SERVICE CORPORATIONS.
See also Electric Utilities; Gas Utilities; Heating Utilities;
Interurban Railways; Railroads; Street Railways; Telephone
Utilities; Toll Bridges; Water Utilities.
CONTROL AND REGULATION IN GENERAL.
Supervision by municipal councils.
1. The foregoing statutes, and others to which no reference is made,
clearly indicate that the pohcy of the state is to give cities as ample
control of the physical properties and operations of pubUc service cor-
porations within their corporate limits as is consistent with the system
of state supervision and control of such corporations provided by statute.
Lang et al. v. City of La Crosse et aL, 1909, 3 R. C. 292, 297.
OPERATION.
Requirement as to service and facilities.
2. It is a well established rule that public service corporations must
provide reasonably adequate service. The Pubhc Utilities Law expressly
requires this. Fesenfeld Sc Barber et aL v, Mazomanie Tel. Co. et al.,
1909, 3 R. C. 514, 516.
Public Utilities. — In general 179
PUBLIC UTILITIES.
See also Electric Utilities; Gas Utilities; Heating Utilities;
Telephone Utilities; Toll Bridges; Water Utilities.
Investments, safety of public utility investments under public utility
legislation, see Investments, 1.
I. IN GENERAL.
II. CONTROL AND REGULATION.
I. IN GENERAL.
Definition of public utility.
1. Section 1 (laws of 1907, ch. 499) of the Public Utilities Law,
defines the term "public utiUty" as meaning and embracing " * * *
every corporation, company, individual, association of individuals, * * *
and every town, village, or city that now or hereafter may own, operate,
manage or control any plant or equipment or any part of a plant or'
equipment within the state, for the conveyance of telephone messages
or for the production, transmission, delivery or furnishing of heat, light,
water or power either directly or indirectly to or for the public." In re
Invest. Hudson Water Wks., 1908, 3 R. G. 138, 140.
Duty to furnish service and facilities.
2. A telephone company can not be likened indiscriminately to other
members of the community who make it their business to sell their com-
modities or their services to the public. A telephone company is a public
servant, and is not only privileged to serve, but also obligated to serve.
It must extend its facilities to all persons so situated as to entitle them to
service. It may not withhold its service except for extraordinary causes.*
It occupies a position of public responsibility in the community. In re
Oregon Tel. Co., 1909, 3 R. C. 534, 546.
3. The duty of a utility is to serve without discrimination, under
reasonable rules and regulations, all people desiring service who subscribe
to and abide by such regulations. The call for service, though coming from
an individual, partakes strongly of the character of a public demand. In
re Refusal Oconto Rural Tel. Co. to Extend Service, 1914, 15 R. G. 277, 279.
4. To fulfill its public duty, a public service corporation must at all
times keep and maintain its plant in a proper state of repair and in an
efficient operating condition, adopt new inventions as they arise, make
extensions and improvements of its plant when necessary and required for
the convenience of the public, and continue its services without cessation
whether profitable or unprofitable. Behrend v. Wis. Tel. Co., 1909, 4 R. G.
150, 155.
Investments — Action of Commission with respect to,
5. The Commission is thoroughly convinced that investments in
public utility enterprises should be so fairly dealt with that men possessed
of means wherewith to construct and operate utilities will, in the future.
180 Public Utilities. — In general
find an attractive field in the state of Wisconsin. It would be short-
eighted policy on the part of the Commission to take any action which
would deter investors residing within or without the state from engaging
in the utility business in this state. If investors were to be deterred for
one reason or another from continuing to make these investments, the
public would unquestionably suffer, and whatever action this Commission
takes, must be taken with due regard to the interests of both investors
and the public. Fullmer v. Wausau Street R. Co., 1909, 3 R. C. 520, 532.
6. It devolves upon the Commission to regard the demand for a
reasonable return upon actual investment and for services rendered on
the part of the utility, as fundamental in establishing and maintaining
adequate service for the community — on the assumption, always, that
ordinary intelligence and honesty have been shown in establishing the
utility. More than the welfare of any given utility or community under
consideration is involved in this. If the principle were unwisely disre-
garded in any one case, it would be an effectual bar to the securing of funds
to develop new utilities or improve existing ones throughout the entire
state. In re AppL Darlington EL Lt. Sc W. P. Co., 1913, 13 R. C. 344, 346.
'II. CONTROL AND REGULATION OF PUBLIC UTILITIES.
Collateral undertaking when not affecting prejudicially the rea-
sonable performance of its duties to the public.
7. As long as the primary purposes of a public utility are carried out
to the reasonable satisfaction of the public, the use of its property for inci-
dental purposes, which, do not impair the efficiency or adequacy of the
public service it has undertaken, is a matter. in which the general public
is not concerned. It is only when the rights of the latter in matters per-
taining to the public calling of such a concern are invaded that a cause
exists for intervention on the part of the public authorities for the purpose
of enforcing such rights and compelling the full and impartial performance
of public functions. Fond du Lac Business Men's Assn. et al. v. Wis.
Tel. Co., 1909, 4 R. C. 340, 353.
Legislative regulation through coniniissions.
8. Legislative regulation of public utilities through commission may,
in some respects, be detrimental to operators who endeavor to evade their
obligations under the common law and who try to profit by the manipula-
tion of capital issues rather than through legitimate, effective and economi-
cal operation of their plants. It is also possible that such regulation may
prove unsatisfactory when ineffectual or misdirected, and until it has been
fully tried out and become more generally understood. But it is difficult
to see how such regulation can result in permanent injury to the great
mass of the investors and to the utilities themselves, if honestly applied
and administered with ordinary care and efficiency along the lines of and
in the spirit of such laws as those which have been enacted in this state.
State Journal Prtg. Co. et al. v. Madison Gas & El. Co., 1910, 4 R. C. 501,
631.
Public Utilities. — Control and regulation of 181
Power of Commission to regulate public utilities — Limitations of
power.
9. A careful reading of the Public Utilities Law will disclose that the
objective point in the legislative mind was the regulation of those affairs
of public utilities by public authority which pertain to and are involved
in the discharge of their obligations to the public. It was not the intention
to confer upon the tribunal charged with the duty of supervision, the
general management of the business of such concerns. The function of
the Commission is, therefore, naturally limited in its scope to the execution
of the primary purposes of the enactment. Fond da Lac Business Men^s
Assn. et al. v. Wis. Tel. Co., 1909, 4 R. C. 340, 349.
What are public utilities — Electric light company determined to
be public utility.
10. The city of Darlington opposes the application for an increase in
rates in the instant case upon the ground, among others, that the applicant
is not a public utility. Held: The applicant is a public utility and subject
to the provisions of the Public Utilities Law. In re Appl. Darlington El.
Lt. <Sc W, P. Co., 1913, 13 R. C. 344, 349.
■ Electric power company declared to be a public utility,
11. The applicant was organized as a public utility, its letterheads
from the first advertising that it would sell current up to its capacity to any
customer. The company was given the right in its charter to use the
streets for poles and wires, and did so use them, being a holder of a fran-
chise from the city authorizing such use. Its articles of incorporation
give as one of its purposes to produce and convey electric power to any
place where it may be desired and to engage in the business of electric
lighting. The entire matter at present is specifically covered by sec.
1797/77-1 of the statutes. Held: That sec. 1797/77-1 of the statutes makes
the applicant a public utility at present, and that the applicant was also
a public utility within the meaning of the law when the contracts involved
were entered into prior to the enactment of the statute in question. In
re Appl. Rhinelander Power Co. to Amend its Rates, 1915, 15 R. C. 783,
786-792. .
: Telephone company declared to be a public utility.
12. The contention of the West Kewaunee & Western Tel. Co. that
it is not a public utility, for the reason that all its' subscribers are stock-
holders, cannot be granted in view of the fact that the company uses the
highways of the state for its pole and wire lines and the further fact that
the company apparently holds itself out as giving a public telephone serv-
ice as distinguished from a purely private service. In re Proposed Exten.
West Kewaunee Sc W. Tel. Co., 1914, 14 R. C. 219, 223.
182 Public Utilities Law. — Operation of
PUBLIC UTILITIES LAW.
I. OPERATION OF LAW.
II. SCOPE AND PURPOSE OF LAW.
III. SECTIONS CONSTRUED.
IV. THEORY WITH RESPECT TO MONOPOLY.
I. OPERATION OF LAW.
Effect on stability of investments in public utility enterprises.
1. There is every reason to believe, what the testimony in this case
suggests, that the operation of the Public UtiUties Law will, eventually,
result in greater stability in the investment in pubHc utiHty enterprises,
and that this will be followed by a relatively lower rate of interest may
reasonably be expected from the nature of the competitive forces operating
upon capital. However, until experience has actually demonstrated it, at
least on a limited scale, no action of far reaching consequences can be
prudently and justly based upon it. Payne et al. v. Wis. Tel. Co., 1909,
4 R. G. 1, 63-64.
11. SCOPE AND PURPOSE OF LAW.
In general.
2. The purpose of the Public Utilities Law, which gives the Commis-
sion authority over public utilities, is to insure to communities as such
and to the people who compose them, adequate service at reasonable rates
from those corporations or individuals whom the state or the community
has by grants of special privileges commissioned to perform such services.
In re Appl. Darlington EL Lt. Sc W. P. Co., 1913, 13 R. C. 344, 345.
Applies alike to municipal and private plants.
3. It is one of the peculiar and highly meritorious provisions of the
Utilities Law, that it applies alike to municipal and private plants. (Wis.
Statutes, sec. 1797m-l.) In re Invest. Hudson Water Wks., 1908, 3 R. C.
138, 140.
4. The laws of Wisconsin place a municipality which owns and oper-
ates a public utility under the same obligations as any other owner of a
public utility to render reasonably adequate service, to charge reasonable
and just rates, and to charge no rates which are unjustly discriminatory.
In re Appl. Ft. Atkinson W. Sc Lt. Comm., 1913, 12 R. C. 260, 266.
Regulation limited to obligations of public utilities to the public.
5. A careful reading of the Public Utilities Law will disclose that the
objective point in the legislative mind was the regulation of those affairs
of public utilities by public authority which pertain to and are involved
in the discharge of their obligations to the public. It was not the intention
to confer upon the tribunal charged with the duty of supervision, the
general management of the business of such concerns. The function of
the Commission is, therefore, naturally limited in its scope to the execution
Public Utilities Law. — Scope and purpose of 183
of the primary purposes of the enactment. Fond du Lac Business Men's
Assn. et al. v. Wis. Tel. Co., 1909, 4 R. C. 340, 349.
With respect to duplication of telephone lines within the same
territory.
6. Unnecessary dupHcation of telephone Hnes within the same terri-
tory was sought to be avoided when ch. 610 of the laws of 1913 (sec. 1797m-
74 of the statutes) was enacted. In re Proposed Exten. Owen Tel. Co.,
1914, 13 R. G. 630, 631; In re Proposed Exten. Wis. Tel Co., 1914, 14
R. C. 396, 398.
With respect to extension of telephone lines.
7. The only action required of this Commission by the law in cases
involving the duplication of telephone lines within the same territory by
the extension of new lines, is a finding that public convenience and neces-
sity do not require the proposed extension. Where the Commission does
not make such a finding, the statute itself operates to authorize the exten-
sion. In re Proposed Exten. Owen Tel. Co., 1914, 13 R. C. 630, 631.
8. We are not unmindful of the evasion of the law that might be
accomplished by telephone companies that construct toll lines and then
request that they be permitted to convert them into local lines. The
Commission wall, however, inquire carefully into the circumstances sur-
rounding any application of that nature and it is not intended that the
effect of this decision shall be to give the sanction of the Commission gener-
ally to such conversions. In re Wis. Tel. Co. Toll Station at Eagle Point,
1914, 15 R. C. 454, 458.
With respect to municipal acquisition. ,
9. The law only imposes upon the municipality the obligation of
purchasing such property as is both actually used and .actually useful for
the convenience of the public. (Wis. Statutes, sec. 1797m-82.) In re
Cashton LI. & P. Co., 1908, 3 R. C. 67, 80.
With respect to the property which must be purchased in case of
municipal acquisition.
10. It is not necessarily all the property that is actually used for the
convenience of the public that a municipality is required to purchase,
when it elects to purchase, but only the ''property actually used and useful
for the convenience of the public." Equity is the spirit of the law. It
would not be permissible for a public utility to so swell its corporate
assets as to defeat the purpose of the act. Any such attempt on the part
of a public service corporation would be an intolerable fraud on the public,
and result futilely. In re Appl. Village of Cashton, 1908, 2 R. C. 677, 691.
With respect as to whether the right to do a public utility business
is contingent upon the ownership of the physical property.
11. In Wisconsin, the distinction between franchise value and physi-
cal items of property was never entered into by the legislature, and the
supreme court, while recognizing the right of the legislature to so distin-
guish, has always held that the physical and intangible items of property.
184 Public Utilities Law. — Scope and purpose of
should be considered as an entirety. This matter has been brought be-
fore the court in taxation cases and has been uniformly decided in the
manner indicated above. See State ex rel. v. Milwaukee St. R. Co. v.
Anderson, 90 Wis. 550; State ex rel. Ashland Water Co. v. Wharton, 115
Wis. 457; C. & N. W. R. Co. v. State, 128 Wis. 553; Fond du Lac Water Co.
V. Fond du Lac, 82 Wis. 322; Monroe Welter Works Co. v. Monroe, 110
Wis. 11; Yellow River Imp. Co. v. Wood Co. and another, 81 Wis. 554,
Under the Public Utilities Law a municipality can only terminate a fran-
chise or indeterminate permit when it determines to acquire the plant of
the public utility and then it must pay just compensation for the property
as a going concern. City of Neenah v. Wis. Tr. Lt. H. Sc P. Co., 1915,
15 R. G. 626, 628, 629, 631.
III. SECTIONS CONSTRUED.
Sec. 1778, telephone companies, right to conduct and maintain lines on
public road or highway subject to reasonable regulation by mu-
nicipahty. Wzs. Te/. Co. y. C%o/ La Crosse, 1911, 7 R. C. 435, 445.
Sec. 1791-a, telephone utilities, requirements as to service and facilities.
In re Use of Silent Numbers by Wis. Tel. Co., 1914, 13 R. C. 587,
592.
Sec. 1797/rj-l, what are public utilities, electric power company declared
to be public utility. In re Appl. Rhinelander P. Co., 1915, 15 R. C.
783, 786.
Sec. 1797/77-1, subd. 5, indeterminate permit defined. In re Appleton
Water Wks. Co., 1910, 6 R. C. 97. 118.
Sec. 1797/77-4, physical connection, constitutionality of statute. McGowan
V. Rock County Tel. Co. et al, 1914, 14 R. C. 529, 533; 15 R C.
378, 379.
Sec. 1797/77-74, nature of franchise. Town of Vaughn v. Hurley W. Co.,
1914, 14 R. C. 291, 293.
Sec. 1797/77-76, municipal acquisition, municipahty cannot acquire busi-
ness of existing utility without also acquiring the plant. City of
Neenah v. Wis. Tr. Lt. Ht. Sc P. Co., 1915, 15 R. C. 626.
Sec. \l%lm-ll and sec. 1797/n-78, indeterminate permit, effect of surren-
dering franchise and receiving in lieu thereof an indeterminate per-
mit. City of Ashland v. Ashland Water Co., 1909, 4 R. C. 273, 305.
Sec. 1797/77-78, by acceptance of indeterminate permit a utility waives
the right to have established by the verdict of a jury, the necessity
of the taking over of its property by the municipality. In re Pur-
chase Grand Rapids El. Co., 1914, 15 R. C. 258, 265.
Sec. 1797/77-79, indeterminate permit, operation under permit, continuous
operation. In re Appl. Interstate Lt. Sc P. Co. et al., 1912, 10 R. C.
603, 611.
Sec. 1797/77-80, municipal acquisition of public utility, regularity of pro-
cedure. In re Racine Water Co., 1912, 10 R. C. 543, 547.
Sec. 1797/77-81, municipal acquisition of public utility, regularity of pro-
cedure, submission of question to voters. In re Racine Water Co.,
1912, 10 R. C. 543, 547.
Publicaiion of Rate Schedules 185
Sec. 1797/71-81, municipal acquisition of public utilities, time of giving
notice to utility or the Commission. In re Purchase Grand Rapids
El Co., 1914, 15 R. C. 258, 263.
Sec. 1797/72-82, compensation for property of [)ublic utilities in case of
municipal acquisition, diminution of value of remaining property
on account of severance of any portion may be considered in deter-
mining just compensation. In re Cashton Lt. & P. Co., 1908,
3R.C. 67, 80-81.
Sec. 1797/77-87, municipal ordinance afTecting rates or service of public
utility, reasonableness of ordinance within purview of Public Utili-
ties Law, review by Commission. In re Appl. Madison Gas & El.
Co., 1913, 11 R. C. 293, 302.
Sec. 1797/77-90, allowance to subscriber of a telephone utility on account
of ownership of instrument or facility, reasonable rental permitted.
In re Badger Tel. Co., 1908, 3 R. C. 98, 103-104.
Sec. 1797/n-90, deduction from rates to offset indebtedness of utility to
subscriber, prohibited. In re Refusal Farmers^ Union Tel. Co. to
Furnish Service, 1913, 13 R. C. 399, 400.
Sec. 1797/77-90, duty of electric utility to provide transformers and light-
ning arresters. In re Refusal of Service by Bloomer El. Lt. & P.
Co., 1915, 15 R.C. 612, 614.
Sec. 1797/n-90, rebates or concessions, allowance to consumer of electric
utility on account of ownership of instrument or facility prohibited.
In re Appl. Neshkoro Lt. Sz P. Co., 1913, 13 R. C. 52, 54.
Sec. 1797/n-91, exceptions respecting public utility contracts do not apply
to indefinite subscription agreements. In re Construction of Sec.
1797m-91, Ch. 499, Laws 1907, 1907, 2 R. C. 113.
Sec. 1797/77-91, legality of rates established by contracts entered into prior
to April 1, 1907. In re Appl. Rhinelander P. Co., 1915, 15 R. C.
783, 813-814.
Sec. 1797/77-108, municipal acquisition of public utility, provision for
compensation. In re Racine Water Co., 1912, 10 R. C. 543, 552.
IV. THEORY WITH RESPECT TO MONOPOLY.
Theory of law as to monopolistic character of utility enterprises.
1. It is well understood that the theory of the Public Utilities Law
is, that utility enterprises are generally monopolistic in their character.
^This theory was not extended to include telephone companies. These
alone are left in a class by themselves, supposed to be governed by the
ordinary laws of competition. Payne et at. v. Wis. Tel. Co., 1909, 4 R. C.
1. 60.
1 For effect of Anti-duplication Law (ch. 610, 1913), ;jec Telephone Util-
ities, 9-25.
PUBLICATION OF RATE SCHEDULES.
See Schedules or Tariffs; Schedules for Utilities.
186 Published Rate
PUBLISHED RATE.
Definition of published railroad rate, see Rates — Railroad, 178.
Departure from published rate prohibited, see Schedules for Utilities,
2-4; Schedules or Tariffs, 8-10.
PULP.
Reasonableness of rates on pulp, see Rates — Railroad, 274.
PULP WOOD.
Reasonableness of rates on pulp wood, see Rates — Railroad, 301.
PUMPAGE.
Pumpage lost and unaccounted for, see Rates — Water, 47.
PUMPING RATES.
Electric rates for municipal pumping, see Rates — Electric, 60,
PUMP JACKS.
Mixture privilege with agricultural implements, see Rates — Railroad,
200.
PURPOSE.
Purpose for which article is intended, as element considered in making
railroad rates, see Rates — Railroad, 145.
as matter considered in determining reasonableness of railroad rates,
seeRATEs— Railroad, 191.
Right of common carriers to designate purpose for which their tracks
shall be used, see Railroads, 101,
QUALITY OF SERVICE.
As element considered in making railroad rates, see Rates — Railroad,
146.
RADIATION.
Formula for computing radiation, see Rates — Heating, 1.
RADIUS CHARGE.
Excess radius charge for telephones, see Rates — Telephone, 15.
Railroad Comm. — Authority of, in awarding reparation 187
RAILROAD.
Definition of term "railroad" and its application to street railways, see
Street Railways, 1, 7.
RAILROAD COMMISSION.
Public utility investments, action of Commission with respect to, see
Public Utilities, 5-6.
I. AUTHORITY OF COMMISSION IN AWARDING REPARATION.
II. DECISIONS OR ORDERS OF COMMISSION.
III. DUTY OF COMMISSION.
IV. EVIDENCE.
V. INVESTIGATION BY COMMISSION.
VI. JURISDICTION OF COMMISSION.
VII. ORDERS OF COMMISSION.
VIII. POWER OF COMMISSION.
I. AUTHORITY OF COMMISSION IN AWARDING REPARATION.
Claims accrued prior to passage of reparation law.
1. Prior to the enactment of ch. 271, laws of 1909, the Commission
was without authority to authorize reparation for claims that had accrued
prior to the act providing that reparation might be made in certain
instances. Chapter 271 provided for a period of thirty days in which
claims of this character could be submitted to the Commission for in-
vestigation, and could be allowed if the Commission should determine
that the charges exacted were either erroneous, unusual or exorbitant.
Ahnapee Veneer cfc Seating Co. v. C. St. P. M. & 0. R. Co., 1909, 4 R. C.
106, 108; Ahnapee Veneer & Seating Co. v. M. St. P. & S. S. M. R. Co.
et al., 1909, 4 R. C. 109, 110.
Commission to determine reasonable rate.
2. In considering whether reparation may be made in any particular
case, the Commission is confined to determining whether the schedule
rate exacted is exorbitant or unusual, and if it finds such rate either
excessive or unusual, it must ascertain what the reasonable rate would
have been, and the latter rate then not only determines the basis of the
award, but indicates the rate to be established and applied in the future.
Joannes Bros. Co. v. C. M. Sc St. P. R. Co., 1909, 3 R. C. 422, 424; Mace
Lime Co. v. C. & N. W. R. Co., 1909, 3 R. C. 590, 592; Menasha Paper Co.
V. C. M. Sc St. P. R. Co. et al., 1909, 3 R. C. 620, 622.
Complaint must be lodged by person aggrieved.
3. The Commission is without power to decide upon the merits of
complaints against charges or to authorize a refund of any part thereof,
unless the complaint be lodged by the person aggrieved. Wausau
Advancement Ass' n. v. C. & N. W. R. Co., 1914, 13 R. C. 772, 774.
188 Railroad Comm. — Authority of, in awarding reparation
Expenses incurred on account of failure of carrier to keep sched-
ules for connections.
4. The Commission has no authority under the law to order reparation
for expenses incurred on account of failure of the carrier to keep schedules
for connections. Burrill v. I. C. R. Co., 1912, 9 R. G. 319, 321.
Finding of specific amount of refund authorized.
5. It is clearly implied in the statutes (sec. 1797-37/n) that the Com-
mission has authority to make a finding of the specific amount of refund
authorized. Rhinelander Paper Co. v. M. St. P. Sc S. S. M. R. Co. et al.,
1912, 10 R. C. 632, 633, 634.
Limitation of statute.
6. The Commission is without authority to authorize a refund as to
shipments upon which the statute of limitations has run. (Wis. Statutes,
sec. 1797-37m.) Pabst Brewing Co. v. C. & N. W. R. Co., 1909, 4 R. C.
173, 174.
7. The making of an informal complaint prior to the expiration of
the six months limitation gives the Commission jurisdiction even though
formal complaint was not filed until after the expiration of the statutory
time limit. Duluth-Superior Milling Co. v. N. P. R. Co., 1911, 7 R. C.
459, 462.
8. Under the provisions of sec. 1797-37/n (sec. 8, ch. 582, laws of
1907) petitions for refund must be filed within six months after delivery
of shipment in order to give the Commission jurisdiction. Menasha
Paper Co. v. W. C. R. Co., 1908, 2 R. C. 300, 301; Connor Land & Lbr.
Co. V. C. iSc N. W. R. Co., 1911, 7 R. C. 774, 778.
9. Under the statute, sec, 1797-37/n, the Commission is without
authority to award reparation for any shipment which moved more than
one year prior to the filing of the complaint. New Richmond Roller
Mills Co. V. F. cfc N. E. R. Co. et al., 1913, 11 R. C. 272, 273; Badger
Basket <Sc Veneer Co. v. M. St. P. <Sc S. S. M. R. Co., 1913, 11 R. C. 492,
494, ,
10. The shipments on which a refund is asked were delivered at
destination more than one year prior to the filing of the claim with the
Commission. The claim would therefore have been barred under sec,
1797-37/n, except for the fact that the recent legislature has by amendment
enlarged the time of fifing claims to two years. (Ch, 66, laws of 1913,)
At the time of the enlargement of the statute the bar had not run upon
the shipments in question, and hence reparation may be awarded, Mayer
V. C. & N: W. R. Co. et at., 1911, 8 R. C. 328, 329-330; Northern Wood Co.
V. C. M. <Sc St. P. R. Co., 1913, 11 R. C. 706. 707.
Reduction of rate not ground for refund.
11. It is only when the Commission finds that the rate is unusual,
exorbitant, illegal or erroneous that reparation may be awarded. The
mere fact that a rate has been reduced by the Commission is not sufficient
ground in itself for authorizing refunds, Menasha Wooden Ware Co. v.
W. C. R. Co., 1908, 2 R. C, 589; Beaver Dam Lbr. Co. v. C. St. P. M. &
0. R. Co., 1908, 2 R. C. 700; Merrill Wooden Ware Co. v. C. M. & St. P.
Railroad Commission. — Duty of 189
R. Co., 1908, 3 R. C. 54; Connor Land <& Lbr. Co. v. C. & N. W. R. Co.,
1911, 7 R. C. 774; Peshtigo Lbr. Co. v. C. & N. W. R. Co., 1914, 14 R. C.
624, 626, 627.
Refunds from erroneous and illegal charges.
12. Before sec. 1797-37m (laws 1907, ch. 582) of the Wisconsin
Stats, was amended by ch. 136 of the laws of 1909, the Railroad Commis-
sion could only authorize refunds in cases where the charges exacted
were in accordance with the duly published and legal rates in force, and
where they were found upon complaint of a shipper to have been either
unusual or exorbitant. The addition of the words erroneous and illegal
broadened the scope of the statute so as to include all charges, whether
in conformity with the legal tariffs or otherwise. Kiel Woodenware Co.
u. C. M. & St. P. R. Co., 1909, 3 R. G. 597. 599-600.
Remedy to be pursued as prescribed by statute.
13. Ah injured shipper, in order to obtain relief in a reparation case,
must pursue his remedy in the manner prescribed by the statute. He is
not permitted to sleep upon his rights until his remedy is barred, and then
seek to enforce the same. Pulpwood Co. of Appleton v. M. St. P. Sc S. S.
M. R. Co. et al., 1910, 6 R. C. 175, 177. *
Shipper cannot be relieved from payment of lawful rates.
14. The Commission cannot relieve a shipper from the payment of
the lawful established tariff charges. To do so would be the equivalent
of suspending the operation of the statute, which is not within the power
of the Commission. It only has authority to authorize refunds when the
payments made are found to be exorbitant, unusual, illegal or erroneous.
Paine Lbr. Co. Ltd. v. C. <Sc N. W. R. Co., 1914, 13 R. C. 633. 634.
II. DECISIONS OR ORDERS OF COMMISSION.
»
Orders only in formal proceedings.
15. Under both the law and the practice no decisions are issued or
orders made by this Commission except in formal proceedings. In re
Manitowoc W. Wks. Co., 1911, 7 R. C. 71, 72.
III. DUTY OF COMMISSION.
Allowance for depreciation in passing upon rate schedules.
16. It is made obligatory upon the Commission to allow for deprecia-
tion in passing upon the rate schedules of public utilities. "The Com-
mission shall provide for such depreciation in fixing the rates, tolls, and
charges to be paid by the public." Wis. Stats., sec. 1797m-15, subd. 3.
In re Oregon Tel. Co., 1909, 3 R. C. 534, 546.
Apportionment of expenses for railroad crossings.
17. The statute provides that the Commission shall apportion the
cost and expense of a new crossing between the railway company and the
town. (Wis. Stat., sec. 1797-12e.) Town of Gillelt v. C. 6c N. W. R. Co.,
1912. 9 R. C. 535. 537.
190 Railroad Commission. — Duty of
Determination of just compensation in case of municipal acquisi-
tion.
18. The statute provides that the Commission shall "fix and deter-
mine * * * just compensation to be paid for the taking of the property
of such public utility actually used and useful for the convenience of the
public and all other terms and all conditions of sale and purchase which
it shall ascertain to be reasonable." (Wis. Stats., sec. 17977n-82.) In re
Cashton Lt. Sc P. Co., 1908. 3 R. G. 67, 80.
Determination of mode and manner of a proposed railroad cross-
ing.
19. Sec. 1797-12e imposes upon the Commission the duty, upon
petition, of determining the mode and manner of a proposed crossing in
the interest of public safety, and of apportioning 'the cost of such crossing
between the railway company and the municipality in interest. Town
of Elcho V. C. Sc N. W. R. Co., 1914, 14 R. C. 796, 800-801.
Enforcement of laws relating to railroads.
20. Sec. 1797-31 of the statutes imposes upon the Commission the
duty of enforcing all laws relating to railroads. Town of Rhine v. C. M. &
St. P. R. Co., 1910, 5. R. C. 184, 188.
Enforcement of Public Utilities Law.
21. Sec. 1797/77-102 says, speaking of the Commission, "It shall be
its duty to enforce the provisions of sees. 1797m-l to 1797m-109." In re
Proposed Exten. Grange Hall Farmers Tel. Co., 1914, 15 R. C. 11, 16.
Enforcement of reasonably adequate service and facilities.
22. Sec. 1797-14 provides that the Railroad Commission shall make
an order fixing regulations, etc., when it determines that a service is
unreasonable. Perry v. A. <Sc W. R. Co., 1906, 1 R. C. 223, 228.
23. The duty of furnishing reasonably adequate service and facilities
for the convenience of the public is imposed upon street railway corpora-
tions by law, and in case of any neglect or failure in the performance of
such duty, it is incumbent upon the Commission to enforce the same by
order in a proper proceeding brought for that purpose. Lang et al. v.
City of La Crosse et al., 1909, 3 R. C. 292, 296.
24. It is the duty of the Commission to ascertain from all the facts and
circumstances presented in any case the reasonableness of any rule or
regulation respecting service and, if it shall determine that such rule or
regulation is unreasonable, to change the same or substitute a reasonable
rule or regulation in place thereof. In re Use of Silent Numbers by Wis.
Tel. Co., 1914, 13 R. C. 587, 593.
Regulation of public utilities. '
25. In order that the Commission may act intelligently in the matter
of regulating public utilities, it is required to value the property of all
public utilities, prescribe uniform systems of accounting, fix standards of
service, establish rules and regulations and generally to do all things
necessary to advise itself fully of all the affairs of such utilities. Fond
du Lac Business Men's Assn. et al. v. Wis. Tel. Co., 1909, 4 R. C. 340, 349.
Railroad Commission. — Investigation by 191
26. This Commission, in passing upon any utility case, whether it
be a petition of the utiUty for permission to increase its charges or the
complaint of a private consumer or a community that rates are too high
or the service inadequate, must give a large share of attention to the ques-
tion of the ability of the utility to maintain its service. In re Appl.
Darlington EL Lt. & W. P. Co., 1913, 13 R. G. 344, 347.
Regulation of rates, service and facilities.
27. An examination of the Public Utilities Law will disclose that it is
among the duties of this Commission to investigate complaints as to rates,
services and facilities; to investigate the services rendered and facilities
afforded and to see to it that these are reasonably adequate under the
circumstances; to discover and prevent unjust discriminations of all kinds;
and, when deemed necessary, to prevent injury to property employed in
public service and affected with public interest, to temporarily alter and
amend existing rates, rules and regulations. In re Invest. T. M. E. R. <fc
L. Co., 1912, 9 R. C. 541, 557.
Requirement of physical connection.
28. Section 1797/n-4 of the statutes imposes upon the Commission
the power and duty of requiring physical connection. Hawkins Creek Tel.
Co. et at. V. Badger Tel. Co., 1914, 14 R. C. 655; 661-664.
IV. EVIDENCE.
Rules of evidence.
29. The Commission upon assuming jurisdiction of the case thorough-
ly investigated all matters which might have any bearing on the equities
involved. It did not deem itself confined to the rules of evidence applicable
to the trial of causes in courts, but assumed that its investigation should
be made along the lines customarily pursued in cases brought before the
Commission in the manner provided by statute. In re Jt. Appl. Waupaca
El. Lt. Sz R. Co. and Waupaca, 1912, 9 R. C. 310, 312-313.
Substantial evidence.
30. The Commission, as is its custom when deemed necessary in order
to arrive at a full understanding of the matters involved in a case, made an
independent investigation which resulted in the accumulation of a large
amount of tabulations, correspondence, etc., which has been instructive
though not entirely probative. (Int. Com. Comm. v. Louis. & Nash. R. R.,
1913, 227 U. S. 88, 93.) Barker & Stewart Lbr. Co. v. C. M. & St. P. R.
Co., 1913, 11 R. C. 537. 539.
V. INVESTIGATION BY COMMISSION.
Use of all the instrumentalities available for ascertaining facts.
31. The Commission upon assuming jurisdiction of a case will use all
the instrumentalities available for ascertaining every fact bearing directly
or indirectly upon the issues and the equities involved in the case. In re
Jt. Appl. Waupaca El. Lt. & R. Co. and Waupaca, 1912, 9 R. G. 310,
312-313.
192 Railroad Commission. — Jurisdiction of
VI. JURISDICTION OF COMMISSION.
How invoked under Public Utilities Law.
32. It is only mercantile, agricultural and. manufacturing societies,
bodies politic and municipal corporations that, acting individually, can
invoke the jurisdiction of the Commission. (Wis. Stats., sec. 17977n-43.)
National Travelers' Assn. of Amer. v. Wis. Tel. Co., 1910, 5 R. C. 678, 690.
How invoked under Railroad Law.
33. Sec. 1797-12 provides that the Commission may take jurisdiction
"upon complaint of any person, firm, corporation or association, or of any
mercantile, agricultural or manufacturing society, or of any body politic
or municipal organization." Washington Park Adv. Assn. v. T. M. E. R.
ScL. Co., 1911, 7 R. C. 19,20.
Improper filing of complaint.
34. The filing of a complaint against a public utility by anyone on
behalf of a municipality without being duly authorized thereto by the com-
mon council or other officers invested with power to act for the munici-
pality, does not confer jurisdiction upon the Commission to act in the
premises. City of Sheboygan v. Sheboygan Lt. P. cfc Ry. Co., 1908, 2 R. C.
249, 250.
Over abandonment of street railway line.
35. No power is vested in the Commission to authorize the abandon-
ment of any line of street railway, that matter being one over which the
common council has exclusive jurisdiction. Lang v. City of La Crosse et al.,
1909, 3 R. C. 292, 298; Jones v. Wis. Ry. Lt. & P. Co., 1914, 14 R. C. 518,
522; In re Chippewa Val. Ry. Lt. & P. Co., 1914, 14 R. C. 713, 714.
Over awarding of reparation on interstate shipments.
36. The claim for reparation is beyond the jurisdiction of the Com-
mission, for the reason that the shipment was interstate. Hale-Mylrea Lbr.
Co. V. C. Sc N. W. R. Co., 1913, 12 R. C. 709, 710. ,
Over changing of route of railroad company.
37. The petitioner seeks to base its application to this Commission
for relief upon the provisions of section 1797-58 of the statutes, which
state that a railroad company may alter or change its route upon a two-
thirds vote of its directors by making and filing with this Commission a
map and certificate of the proposed alterations, provided "that such altera-
tion or change shall not deviate from the original route of such railroad as
approved by the Railroad Commission for a greater distance than one
mile. * * * and also provided that the original termini or route in any
city or village shall not be changed by such alteration * * * without
the approval of the Railroad Commission." City of Ashland v. M. St.
P. & S. S. M. R. Co., 1915, 15 R. C. 816, 819.
Over claims against common carrier.
38. Where a shipper presents a claim to a carrier and payment is
refused, the controversy is one that under our Constitution must be settled
Railroad Commission. — Jurisdiction of 193
by some appropriate judicial tribunal. Judicial powers are exercised by the
courts and cannot be conferred on an administrative body like this Com-
mission. Ho'dges v. W. C. R. Co., 1906, 1 R. G. 300, 302."
Over class rates for passengers.
39. So much of sec. 1797-22 of the Wiscons law as prohibits the
making of any charge other or different from thai contained in the pub-
lished tariffs, is in substance, taken from sec. 2 of the Interstate Commerce
Act. In re Construction of Ch. 362, Laws of 1905, 1905, 1 R. C. 1, 15.
Over connections between spur track and main line.
40. There is but one question for decision, and that is whether or not
the point at which the petitioner desires to make the connection is within
the yard limits of the railway company at Osceola. The statute is manda-
tory in its terms, and if the point in question is within yard limits, it is
the absolute duty of the railway company to grant the petitioner's request
regardless of the physical conditions. Osceola Mill & Elevator Co. v. M.
St. P. & S. S. M. R. Co., 1906, 1 R. C. 166, 174.
«
Over contractors.
41. The Commission has no jurisdiction over the authorization of
contractors to do work or over their dealings with private parties. Free-
holders etc. of Dodge County v. McWilliams, 1914, 13 R. C. 603, 605.
Over contracts.
42. This Commission is not authorized to pass upon the validity of
private contracts entered into by public utilities with their patrons with a
view of rendering judgments specifically enforcing the same, or granting
damages for their breach if found to be valid. Berend v. Wis. Tel. Co.,
1909, 4 R. C. 150, 154; Lauder v. C. St. P. M. & 0. R. Co., 1914, 15 R. C.
33, 35.
43. The only ground upon which the Commission may supervise
contracts entered into by connecting railways for the division of through
rates, is an excessive division of such rates granted by one railway to anoth-
er which operates as a rebate to a shipper by reason of his ownership of
the road receiving such exorbitant share of the through rates, or which,
for other reasons, may be in violation of law. In re Appl. Waupaca-
Green Bay R. Co., 1908, 2 R. C. 291, 295.
44. The construction of contracts is not a matter within the juris-
diction of the Commission. The courts must be relied upon for settling
all disputes arising out of contractual relations. City of Ashland v. Ashland
Water Co., 1909, 4 R. C. 273, 300.
Over culverts.
45. Sec. 13886 of the Statutes (ch. 159, laws of 1913) makes the pro-
vision, construction and maintenance of sufficient ditches, culverts or
other outlets under such circumstances as the present mandatory. It is
our judgment, therefore, that full compliance with the statute above
quoted required that the culverts in question be lowered so as to allow a
free flow for the water in the drainage ditches on petitioner's land.
Williams v. C. Sc N. W. R. Co., 1914, 15 R. C. 366, 369.
194 Railroad Commission. — Jurisdiction of
Over emergency rates.
46. While the act provides that, with the consent of the railway com-
panies, the Commission can temporarily suspend in case of an emergency,
to be judged of by the Commission, any existing passenger rate, still the
section further provides that such an emergency rate as is made shall
remain in force for such length of time as may be prescribed by the Com-
mission. The difficulty in applying this section to the facts laid before
the Commission in this matter is that the law seems to contemplate action
by the Commission in cases of emergency, and does not seem to contem-
plate the making of permanent emergency rates. In re Construction of
Ch. 362, Laws of 1905, 1905, 1 R. C. 1, 6.
Over extension of service.
47. As to the extension of service requested of the Wis. Tel. Co., the
Commission is without jurisdiction. The Wis. Tel. Co. is not obligated to
furnish service of a local character in the village. On the contrary, it
could only make the extensions in question after filing notice with, and
securing the approval of the Commission under ch. 610, laws of 1913, and
it would be contrary to the established policy of the legislature for the
Commission to permit or require the extension of the Wis. Tel. Co's. lines
into Fall River for local service, even though such requirement were legally
possible. In re Invest. People's Tel. Co. et al. at Fall River, 1914, 14 R. C.
793, 795.
Over grain elevators owned by interstate railroads.
48. An elevator situated within the borders of a state is subject to
reasonable regulation and control by the legislature of that state or by a
commission duly authorized to exercise such control, and such regulation
and control is not an unlawful regulation of interstate commerce. Superior
Board of Trade v. G. N. R. Co., 1907, 1 R. C. 619, 655.
Over industrial tracks.
49. In the original order of the Commission (4 R. C. 233 as modi-
fied in 4 R. C. 788 and 5 R, C. 110), subsequently vacated by the su-
preme court (144 Wis. 523), the Commission acted on the basis that
private tracks laid upon the premises of a private company for the con-
venient operation of its industries do not form a part of the railway
company's system. If we are in error in this and the Commission has
authority to thus extend private tracks, constructed upon the premises of
industries for the purpose of conveniently handling the in and out traffic
of such industries, it is important that the matter be not left in doubt.
From the language of the court it would seem that such authority exists,
but as we are unable to find that the attention of the court was directed
to the question here suggested, we hesitate to accept the conclusions
reached as final, and trust, if the matter should again reach the supreme
court for decision, that the question may be positively determined. Eden
Ind. Lime dc Stone Co. v. C. <Sc N. W. R. Co., 1911, 7 R. C. 140, 147.
50. The Commission is without jurisdiction to order the restoration
of the sidetrack as prayed for. The track was installed before the passage
of the Railroad Commission Law and was not paid for in full by the owners
Railroad Commission. — Jurisdiction of 195
of the industry to which it was originally built, nor in part by the peti-
tioner or her predecessors. Its removal is, therefore, not subject to the
conditions imposed by sec. 1802 of the Statutes, which provides for the
building of spur tracks at the expense of the industry desiring them and
for the removal only upon due notice and for good cause, shown. Doyle
v. M. St. P. & S. S. M. R. Co., 1914, 13 R. C. 622.
51. It is well settle'd that neither the legislature nor the Commission
can compel a railroad company to construct sidings at its own expense.
Any statute imposing such expense upon the railway company would be
void. N. W. Warehouse Co. v. Oregon Ry. & Navig. Co., 32 Wash. 218;
Mays V. Seaboard Airline Ry. Co., 75 So. Car. 455; Mo. Pac. Ry. Co. v.
Nebraska, 164 U. S. 403; Mo. Pac. Ry. Co. v. Nebraska, 217 U. S. 196.
For the reasons given, we are of the opinion that the Commission is with-
out power to compel the respondent railway company to construct the
sidetrack prayed for in the petition. Osceola Millg Sc El. Co. v. M. St. P.
& S. S. M. R. Co., 1914, 15 R. C. 416, 420.
Over interchange of traflSc.
52. While the legislature has conferred authority upon the Commis-
sion to compel railway companies to provide reasonable facilities for the
interchange of trafTic between their respective lines (Wis. Stats., sec.
1797-11 and sec. 1802c) at the present time there is no statutory provision
empowering the Commission to require facilities for the interchange of traf-
fic between land and water carriers. City of Ashland v. M. St. P. Sc S. S.
M. R. Co., 1915, 15 R. C. 816, 820.
Over interstate commerce.
53. Neither a state legislature nor a commission can exercise any
rate regulative control over interstate commerce. In determining
whether an intrastate rate is reasonable, or otherwise, the net earnings
which the carrier derives from its interstate business cannot be consid-
ered. If the net earnings of the intrastate trafTic are not sufficient to war-
rant a reduction in the rate or rates complained of, it is immaterial that
the net earnings on the entire traffic, intrastate and interstate, would be
sufficient to justify a reduction. Buel v. C. M. & St. P. R. Co., 1907,
1 R. C. 324, 340-346.
54. The control which the state may directly or through a state
agency exercise over trains engaged in interstate traffic, is exceedingly
limited. If the state has the power to direct the routing of interstate
traffic where a railway company maintains more than one line between
two points in the state, it must result from a holding that the exercise of
such power does not directly regulate or place a burden upon interstate
commerce, or that the routing of trains in such instances is such a regula-
tion that the state may properly act in the matter until the congress
has legislated on the subject and thereby withdrawn the same from the
jurisdiction of ihe state. Village of Abbotsford i). M. St. P. 6c S. S. M.
i?. Co., 1911, 6 R. C. 619, 623.
Over interstate shipments.
55. This Commission has no jurisdiction over interstate shipments
and has no power or authority to compel carriers to make joint rates
196 Railroad Commission. — Jurisdiction of
between points in this state and neighboring states. Sandoval Zinc Co. v.
M. P. & N. R. Co., 1906, 1 R. C. 99, 100, 101; National Mfg. Co. v. I. C.
R. Co., 1912, 9 R. G. 509, 511; National Distilling Co. v. C. & N. W. R.
Co. et al., 1913, 11 R. C. 424, 428.
56. In considering the matters in issue, we have laid aside the question
of the jurisdiction of this Commission because of the fact that the cars
were required for interstate shipments, and have determined these matters
on their merits. Colfax Produce Co. v. M. St. P. Sc S. S. M. R. Co.,
1914, 14 R. C. 86, 91.
57. It is obvious from section 1 of the Interstate Commerce Act as
amended by the act of June 29, 1906, that congress has legislated precisely
upon the subject of the receipt and delivery of interstate shipments of
goods by express carriers. It therefore follows conclusively, that what-
ever power this Commission may have possessed to regulate the delivery
of express matter transported from points without this state and addressed
to individuals at stations within this state prior to the act of congress
placing all interstate carriers of express matter under the provisions of
the Interstate Commerce Act, the Commission, since such action on the
part of the congress, is without jurisdiction on the matter. Strauss v.
American Express Co. et al., 1909, 3 R. C. 556, 575.
Over interstate trains.
58. It would seem to be reasonably clear from the court decisions
cited that under certain circumstances a railroad commission, duly em-
powered by statute, may compel a railway company to stop interstate
trains carrying United States mails. The right to exercise the power
would seem to depend on a question of fact in every instance, and the
essential fact to be determined is whether or not the locality in question
is adequately ser^'^ed by other trains. Farmer v. D. S. S. & A. R. Co.,
1907, 1 R. C. 316, 321.
59. It is a thoroughly established fact of law that a state commission
has no authority to interfere with an interstate train unless such interfer-
ence is necessary in order to provide adequate local service. If without
the service of an interstate train the service provided to the locality is
adequate, a state commission has no authority to interfere in its operation.
Rosen v. C. St. P. M. & 0. R. Co. et al, 1907, 1 R. C. 512, 518; Jones v.
C. M. & St. P. R. Co., 1907, 1 R. C. 615, 618; Sager v. C. M. & St. P. R.
Co., 1907, 1 R. C. 660, 661; Dyer v. C. M. & St. P. R. Co., 1908, 2 R. C.
621, 625; Anderton et al. v. M. St. P. Sc S. S. M. R. Co., 1914, 14 R. C.
247, 249; Adams et al. v. C. B. & Q. R. Co., 1914, 14 R. C. 506, 507; Hugh-
son et al. V. D. S. S. <Sc A. R. Co., 1915, 15 R. C. 599, 602. 603; Fond du
Lac Business Men's Assn. v. C. & N. W. R. Co., 1915, 15 R. C. 606, 607.
60. The Commission will not hesitate to require an interstate train
to stop to make proper connections within the state when such changes
are necessary for adequate service. Nolan et al. v. C. & N. W. R. Co.
et al, 1915, 15 R. C. 588, 591.
Over interurban railway service.
61. The right of the companies to operate interurban cars upon the
streets which was challenged by the city, is a judicial question and not
Railroad Commission. — Jurisdiction of 197
within the power of the Commission to determine. So long as the com-
panies render such service, however, that service is subject to the super-
vision and regulation of the Commission. City of Waukesha v. T. M. E.
R. <Sc L. Co. et al., 1913, 13 R. C. 89, 97.
Over location of high voltage transmission lines.
62. The confronting difficulty in the case is the want of jurisdiction
in the Commission to compel either company to change the location of
its lines. If the telephone company has suffered damage because of the
interference with its service and business, it may possibly recover the
same in an action in court. The situation here presented suggests the
necessity of additional legislation, giving the Commission power to deter-
mine the location of high voltage transmission lines. Ebenezer Tel. Co.
V. M. L. H. Sc T. Co., 1915, 15 R. C. 619, 621; Platteville etc. Tel. Co. v.
Lancaster El. Lt. Co., 1915, 15 R. C. 622.
Over location of a railroad station.
63. The Commission is empowered in a proper case to fix the point of
location of a depot. City of Rhinelander v. M. St. P. & S. S. M. R. Co.,
1912, 8 R. C. 719, 725; Von Berg et al. v. C. M. & St. P. R. Co., 1914,
14 R. C. 553, 554; 15 R. C. 311, 312.
Over obstructions in navigable streams.
64. It will be observed that the statute (sec. 1596) speaks of unlawful
obstructions, but does not attempt to define what constitutes an unlawful
obstruction. Consequently, in the absence of any judicial interpretation
limiting and defining the term "unlawful obstruction," the administra-
tion of the statute is rendered difficult and uncertain. As a guide to the
Commission, it is essential that some general criterion be established by
which the unlawfulness of any structure in or over a navigable stream
may be determined. In re Obstructions in the Rock River at Janesville,
1914, 14 R. C. 190, 202-203.
Over parties to proceedings.
65. The Commission has no power to make any order affecting any
company not a party thereto. Ettrick Tel. Co. v. La Crosse Tel. Co., 1913,
12 R. C. 68, 72.
Over physical connection of telephone systems.
66. The objections to the jurisdiction of the Commission based upon
the alleged invalidity of the statute involved in these proceedings were
also set up in the answer and disposed of, in the case of Winter v. La Crosse
Tel. Co. et al., 1913, 11 R. C. 748. McGowan v. Rock County Tel. Co.
et al., 1914, 14 R. C. 529, 531-533.
Over private commercial dock of railroad company.
67. Property not devoted to the purpose of giving the service that
the railway company holds itself out as offering, is essentially private in
character and subject to the control of the railway company. It has been
held that a railway company is not required to maintain a dock for the
purpose of allowing any competing carriers to load and discharge goods.
198 Railroad Commission. — Jurisdiction of
Such a wharf or dock is the company's private property to which it has
the sole right of occupancy and the power of regulation thereof. Louis-
ville & Nashville R. R. Co. v. West Coast Naval Stores Co., 198 U. S. 483.
City of Ashland v. M. St. P. & S. S. M. R. Co., 1915, 15 R. C. 816, 821.
Over private logging railroad.
68. The line in question in the present case was operated as a private
logging railroad and not as a common carrier. The Commission is there-
fore without jurisdiction and the petition must be dismissed. Bolger
et al. v. C. M. & St. P. R. Co. et al., 1913, 12 R. C. 223, 234-235.
Over public utilities.
69. Any undertaking or practice collateral to the public calling of a
public utility, which does not in itself impair the abihty of the utility to
.fully perform its public functions in every respect, is not within the con-
templation of the regulative powers of the Commission. It is only when
the public is prejudiced in the matter of rates, services, or facilities by
any such act, practice or collateral undertaking of a public utility that the
Commission may step in and exercise its supervisory power to the end
that such prejudice be removed. Fond du Lac Business Men^s Assn. et
al. v. Wis. Tel. Co., 1909, 4 R. C. 340, 349.
70. The company has, without voluntary election so to do, become
subject to the provisions of ch. 499 of the laws of 1907, known as the
Pubhc Utilities Law, and acts amendatory thereof and supplementary
thereto. The fact that the company has not voluntarily elected to come
under the indeterminate permit provision of the Utilities Law is deemed
to be of no material effect. Town of Vaughn v. Hurley W. Co., 1914,
14 R. C. 291,294.
a
Over railroads.
71. Sec. 1797-31 imposes upon the Commission the duty of enforc-
ing the provisions of sections 1797-1 to 1797-38 inclusive, known as the
Railroad Commission Act, as well as all other laws relating to railroads,
and to report all violations thereof to the attorney-general. In re Cross-
ing on C. Sz N. W. R. in Town of Gale, 1914, 14 R. C. 445, 447-448.
72. The phrase in the law "reasonably adequate service" is a general
and inclusive term which embraces such things as speed, comfort and
safety. Safety is one of the elements of reasonably adequate service.
Insofar as the character and location of a switchstand affects the comfort
and safety of the traveling pubhc, it is unquestionably subject to the
jurisdiction of the Commission within the limits of the Railroad Com-
mission Law. Bradley v. C. M. Sc St. P. R. Co., 1909, 4 R. C. 136, 141.
Over railroad crossings.
73. Sec. 1797-12rf of the Statutes authorizes the Commission to order
protection "if upon such hearing it shall appear to the commission that
the crossing complained of is unsafe and dangerous to human life."
Town of Wilton v. C. Sc N. W. R. Co., 1913, 11 R. C. 598, 602-603.
74. Sec. 1797-12e, provides that when a petition is lodged with the
Commission by the town board of any town to the effect that pubhc
Railroad Commission. — Jurisdiction of 199
safety requires an alteration in the crossing of a highway by a railroad,
or its approaches, the closing of a highway crossing and the substitution
of another therefor, the Commission shall determine what alteration in
such crossing, approaches, etc., shall be made and by whom made, and
shall fix the proportion of cost and expense of such alteration, removal and
new crossing, including the damages to any person whose land is taken,
to be paid by the railroad company and the municipality in interest.
Town of Westport v. C. Sc N. W. R. Co., 1912, 9 R. C. 218, 220-221.
75. The Commission cannot pass upon the validity of the proceedings
of the board of supervisors in laying out a highway for a railroad crossing.
Whether the necessary steps were taken to lay out the highway in the
manner prescribed by statute, can only be determined by the courts.
Town of Gillett v. C. &: N. W. R. Co., 1912, 9 R. C. 535, 536.
76. The mode and manner of the crossing of the respondent's tracks
by the proposed highway can be determined independently of the question
whether the highway has been lawfully established or not, for the actual
laying out of a highway is not a condition precedent to the jurisdiction
of the Commission. Town of Gillett v. C. & N. W. R. Co., 1912, 9 R. C.
535, 536.
77. A petition from the town or village authorities is necessary to
give the Commission authority to order further protection at the crossing
in question. Laursen et al. v. M. St. P. Sc S. S. M. R. Co., 1913, 11 R. C.
627, 632.
78. Action brought under sec. 1797-12e. Although the petition in
this case does not follow the technical wording of the law, namely "that
public safety requires the determination", etc., it is sufficiently clear that
the petition is to that effect. The allegation of the petition and of the
resolution of the village board attached thereto unquestionably tend to
show that the power of the Commission is invoked to provide for the
requirements of public safety. Village of Mt. Horeb v. C. Sc N'. W. R. Co.,
1913, 12 R. C. 495, 498.
79. The Commission is without authority to determine the mode and
manner of a railway crossing on any street until the proper proceedings
have been taken to have the street legally opened over the railroad right
of way. Sec. 1797-12e of the Statutes applies only to streets or highways
which have been legally opened. Village of Unity v. M. St. P. Sc S. S.
M. R. Co., 1913, 13 R. C. 430, 431.
80. The Commission has taken the position that the question of the
public necessity of a proposed crossing is to be determined by the munici-
pality in interest and that the Commission is without jurisdiction in the
matter (Town of Elcho v. C. Sc N. W. R. Co., 1914, 14 R. C. 796, and
Town of Superior v. G. N. R. Co., 1914, 15 R. C. 300), and we
see no reason for withdrawing from the position there taken. To hold
otherwise would in effect place the Commission in the position of dictating
a municipality's highway development. Town of Remington v. C. M. Sc
St. P. R. Co., 1915, 15 R. C. 609, 610.
Over railroad crossings — Cattle guards.
81. Sec. 1813 is supplementary to sec. 1810, which specifically
provides for the construction of cattle guards only at highway crossings.
200 Railroad Commission. — Jurisdiction of
The farm owner is authorized by sec, 1813 to serve notice upon the railway
company to "construct the necessary farm crossings and cattle guards
thereon" and a penalty is fixed for the railway company's failure to do so.
In our opinion sec. 1813 makes it obligatory upon a railway company to
provide cattle guards and the wing fences necessary for their efficient
use at farm crossings upon notice from a farm owner. Von Rueden v.
CM. & St. P. R. Co., 1914, 15 R. C. 272, 275, 276.
Over railroad crossings — Relocation of crossing. ^
- 82. The legislature of 1913 (ch. 603, laws of 1913) empowered the
Commission to order the closing of a grade crossing and the substitution
of another therefor at grade, if found necessary in the interest of public
safety. In re Barron's Crossing in the Town of Almena, 1914, 14 R. G.
128,129.
Relocation of highway.
83. Authority was conferred upon the Commission by ch. 603, laws
of 1913 (sec. 1797-12/) to order the relocation of highways. In re C. M.
& St. P. R. Crossings in Cross Plains, 1914, 14 R. C. 343, 344.
Restoration of a highway.
84. The contention that the Commission has no jurisdiction to enforce
the provisions of sec. 1836 of the Statutes was discussed in In re Crossing
on C. <Sc N. W. R. in Town of Gale, 1914, 14 R. C. 445, and the
opinion there given is here followed. Town of Menomonee v. C. & W. R. C.
Co., 1914, 14 R. C. 549, 552.
Separation of grades.
85. The Commission is without power to require the expenditure of
money by either the town or the railway company for aesthetic purposes
in the construction of an overhead bridge at a railway crossing. Town of
Madison v. C. M. & St. P. R. Co., 1913, 12 R. C. 395, 398.
86. Sec. 1797-12e of the statutes requires a petition for a separation
of grades to be lodged by the common council of a city, the village board
of a village, the town board of a town or by a railway company, and the
Commission has no jurisdiction in such proceedings when instituted by
individuals. Rueckert et al. v. C. M. Sz St. P. R. Co., 1914, 13 R. C.
749, 750.
87. The Commission has jurisdiction under sec. 1797-12e of the
statutes to pass upon the safety of a crossing not at grade upon complaint
by the proper municipal authorities. City of Monroe v. C. M. Sc St. P.
R. Co., 1914,.14 R. C. 176, 178.
Over railroad grade which interferes with access to a river.
88. The petitioners allege that the construction of the new grade of
the C. B. & Q. R. R. Co. along the Mississippi river in front of the village
of De Soto has cut off the village from access to the river for navigation
purposes. Held: The Commission has no authority to take action to
prevent interference with the access of the residents of the village to the
river. The complaint is dismissed. Andrew et al. v. C. B. &: Q. R. Co.,
1913, 12 R.C. 567, 568.
Railroad Commission. — Jurisdiction of 201
Over rates established by contract.
89. For the state, through the Commission, to interpose in the present
case or in any such case to change or authorize a change in the rates
named in a contract, is not such an impairment of contract obHgations
ias comes within the inhibition of the constitution, but instead is carrying
out one of the terms or provisions of the contract (Manitowoc v. Manitowoc
& Northern Tr. Co., 145 Wis. 13). A case decided by the supreme court
of Wisconsin as late as December, 1914 (M. St. P. & S. S. M. R. Co.,
Appellant, v.Menasha Wooden Ware Co., 150 N. W. 411) makes very clear
this principle. The right of the legislature through the Railroad Com-
mission to change or authorize a change in rates named in contracts
made by public service corporations is well established. In re Appl.
Rhinelander P. Co. to Amend its Rates, 1915, 15 R. C. 783, 813, 814.
Over rates — Public utility.
90. That part of the application which relates to reductions in rates
requires no especial attention at the hands of this Commission, for the
reason that reductions are permissible without express authority, provided
that the provisions of the law relating to the publication of rates be
complied with and that such reductions do not create unjust discrimina-
tions. In re Appl. Tomah El Sc Tel. Co., 1908, 2 R. C. 296; 297.
91. The reasonableness of the present rates is a question of facts,
and, as such, may best be determined without passing on all- the phases
of the legal relations that may exist between the applicant and the city.
The plant involved is a public utility operating under an indeterminate
permit of the state, and, as such, is subject to the Public Utilities Law.
In re Appl. Red Cedar Valley El. Co., 1911, 6 R. C. 717, 719.
Railroad.
92. The legislature may enact a general law, providing that all rates
of charge for the carriage of persons, or of property, shall be reasonable,
and prohibiting unjust or extortionate charges, and may delegate to an
administrative body, created by it, the power to ascertain and determine
the fact as to when a rate is unreasonable, and to substitute a reasonable
one therefor. Such action on the part of the legislature does not con-
stitute a delegation of legislative power in conflict with the Constitution,
and the legislature of Wisconsin, by the enactment of ch. 362, laws of
1905, conferred such power on the Railroad Commission. Buell v.
C\ M. & St. P. R. Co., 1907, 1 R. C. 324, 337-345.
93. The Railroad Commission is empowered to carry out the pro-
visions of ch. 362 of the laws of 1905 by holding hearings, conducting
investigations, and determining and establishing reasonable charges.
City of Milwaukee v. T. M. E. R. & L. Co., 1912, 10 R. C. 1, 11.
94. The Commission is not bound by the suggestions of the peti-
tioners, but is free to establish what it considers to be reasonable rates
under the circumstances of the case. Ringle et al. v. C. M. Sc St. P. Rl Co.
et al., 1911, 7 R. C. 598, 599-600.
Street railway.
95. Under the provisions of ch. 362, laws of 1905, and acts amendatory
thereto, the Railroad Commission has been created to determine the
202 Railroad Commission. — Jurisdiction of
reasonableness of rates of traction utilities and where present rates are
unreasonable to fix and determine the lawful rate. Cusick el al. v. T. M.
E. R. & L. Co. et al, 1912, 10 R. C. 314, 335.
Over relations between officials of a utility.
96. The Commission has no jurisdiction over the- relations between
a utility official and the board of directors unless such relations impair
the service or create unreasonable rates. Pospichal et al. v. Muscoda
Mulual Tel. Co., 1915, 15 R. C. 578, 579.
Over river improvements.
97. The Commission has power to regulate all river improvements
so as to conserve all public rights in such waters, promote the improve-
ment of navigation and protect life, health and property. Freeholders,
etc. of Dodge County v. McWilliams, 1914, 13 R. C. 603, 605.
Over stock and bond issues.
98. If the corporation complies with all the requirements of the
Commission by furnishing such statements and evidence as the Commis-
sion "may deem pertinent to the inquiry," and the Commission finds no
illegality in the proposed issue of stocks, bonds or other evidences of
indebtedness, it must issue to the corporation a certificate authorizing
it to issue such stock, bonds or other evidences of indebtedness to the
amount, of the character, for the purposes and upon the terms proposed
on the part of the corporation. Unless the proposed issue of stocks,
bonds or other evidences of indebtedness are unauthorized or unlawful
in any of the particulars above mentioned, the Commission cannot deny
the granting of the certificates. In re Southern Wis. Ry. Co., 1907,
2 R. C. 47, 54-56.
Over street railways.
99. Our conclusion is that any street railway company that is not
solely engaged in the transportation of passengers within the limits of
cities is subject to ch. 362, laws of 1905, both as to its urban and interurban
business and that the reports of accidents should include both classes of
business. In re Appl. of Ch. 362, Laws 1905, to Street Railways, 1906,
1 R. C. 178, 191. -
100. Although prior to the enactment of the Railroad Commission
Law the power of service regulation was vested in the common council and
the regulative ordinance of 1901 was a valid exercise of that power, juris-
diction in the matter was subsequently conferred on the Commission and
any prior act of the common council which conflicts with the exercise of the
proper authority by the Commission cannot stand. Jones v. Wis. Ry. Lt.
Sc P. Co., 1914, 15 R. C. 174, 176.
Over switching connections for intrastate commerce.
101. The petitioner is not tendering to the railway company inter-
state traffic. He is seeking facilities for intrastate traffic only.' His
remedy, if any, under the circumstances, must be found in the state
statute. The interstate commerce commission certainly cannot grant
Railroad Commission. — Jurisdiction of 203
him the rehef he asks. Phelps v. C. M. iSc St. P. R. Co., 1911, 6 R. G. 556,
563.
Over switching of commodities brought from points outside of
the state.
102. The point was raised that the Commission is without jurisdiction
over the question of switching rates for grain in the city of Superior, be-
cause the grain in question was bought at points outside of Wisconsin,
and that for this reason the switching of the same is interstate trafTic.
Held: That notwithstanding that the grain switched is brought from points
outside of the state, the switching at Superior is not interstate traffic and
the switching rates are within the jurisdiction of the Commission. Duluth
Superior Milling Co. et al. v. N. P. R. Co., 1910, 5 R. C. 598, 599; 6 R. C.
70. 72.
Over tell tales.
103. Sec. 36, ch. 362, laws of 1905, provides that "all powers, duties
and privileges imposed and conferred upon the railroad commissioner of
this state under existing laws are hereby imposed and conferred upon the
commission." It is therefore made the duty of the Commission to pre-
scribe rules and regulations governing the erection of tell tales. In re
Rules for Tell Tales, 1908, 2 R. C. 757, 761.
Over train service.
104. It is our understanding of sec. 1801, of the statutes that the
quantity of service required thereby is a minimum which may or may not
fully meet the requirements of adequacy. The Commission would not be
justified in finding that fewer trains could furnish adequate service at a
station within the classification, but certainly if the designated number of
trains were stopped at extremely inconvenient hours, thereby rendering
the service of little or no value to the residents of the locality, the Com-
mission would have power to require a rearrangement of schedule or the
operation of additional trains. Callen et al. v. C. M. & St. P. R. Co., 1914,
14 R. C. 581, 583-584.
Over warehouse sites.
105. The statute which gives the Commission authority over ware-
house sites on railroad property evidently contemplates a business in
which a specific service is rendered to all demanding it for a uniform com-
pensation. (Wis. Stat., sec. 1802a.) American Society of Equity v. C. St.
P. M. Sc 0. R. Co., 1913, 12 R. C. 557, 558; Rust v. M. St. P. & S. S. M.
R. Co., 1914. 14 R. C. 251, 252.
Over water powers.
106. Since ch. 652, laws of 1911, has been declared unconstitutional
(Water Power Cases, 1912, 148 Wis. 124). the Commission is without juris-
diction to regulate and control the level and flow of water in navigable
streams within the state. Law et al. v. Darlington El. Lt. &. P. Co., 1912,
10 R. G. 380, 381-382.
204 Railroad Commission. — Jurisdiction of
Over western classification.
107. The incident of publishing state and interstate tariffs between
the same covers cannot affect the question of jurisdiction. If this were true,
it would be possible to withdraw all state rates from the jurisdiction of
the Commission by publication with interstate rates. There can be no
reasonable question regarding the jurisdiction of the Commission over the
western classification insofar as it affects or governs shipments between
points in Wisconsin. Crary v. M. St. P. Sz S. S. M. R. Co. et al., 1909, 3
R. C. 432, 435-436.
VII. ORDERS OF COMMISSION.
Judicial review.
108. 'In reviewing the order of the Railroad Commission the inquiry
is not whether the rate, regulation, or service fixed by the Commission is
just and reasonable, but whether the order of the Commission is unreason-
able or unlawful. The nature of the inquiry is changed at this point, and
the court is not investigating for the purpose of establishing a fixed point.
Whether or not the order is within the field of reasonableness, or outside
of its boundaries, is the question for the court. It is quite a different
question from that which was before the Commission in this respect. The
order being found by the court to be such that reasonable men might well
differ with respect to its correctness cannot be said to be unreasonable.
From this aspect it is within the domain of reason, not outside of its bound-
aries. This is the viewpoint of the reviewing court." (M. St. P. Sc S. S.
M. R. Co. V. Railroad Commission, 1908, 136 Wis. 146, 165, 168, 171.)
State Journal Prtg. Co. et al. v. Madison Gas <Sc El. Co., 1910, 4 R. C. 501,
624.
-109. The determination of the validity of a statute is a judicial and
not an administrative function. Tribunals such as this Commission should
not attempt to set at naught legislation, even though convinced of its
invalidity, unless the enforcement of the same would result in some irre-
parable injury. No such consequence can result from any order of the
Commission requiring compliance with the particular statute whose
validity is challenged for in a proper proceeding any order of the Commis-
sion based upon the statute may be reviewed in court and the validity of
the statute tested. Teasdale v. C. & N. W. R. Co. et al, 1912, 9 R. C. 66, 73.
VIII. POWER OF COMMISSION.
General powers.
110. The general powers vested in the Commission by the Commission
Act relate to the regulation of services and rates of railway companies.
The duties of such companies generally prescribed by the statute, which is
declaratory of the common law, are contained in section 1797-3. Stresen-
Reuter et al. v. C. & N. W. R. Co., 1912, 9 R. C. 394, 395.
Implied powers.
111. Powers may be implied where they are essential to carry out the
express purposes of a statute, and without which the statute would be
Railroad Commission. — Power of 205
ineffective, but the implication of terms and provisions for the mere sake
of convenience, or for the purpose of extending the scope of a statute,
is not permitted. Lang et al. v. City of La Crosse et al., 1909, 3 R. C. 292,
298.
With respect to abandonment of street railway track within a city.
112. The Commission cannot either authorize the construction or
extension of any electric railroad within a city, or prevent the abandonment
or change of location of any part of such a road constructed under a fran-
chise granted by a common council, if the council's consent thereto has
been obtained. Lang et' al. v. City of La Crosse et al., 1909, 3 R. G. 292,
298; Brown v. Janesville Street R. Co., 1910, 4 R. G. 757, 761.
With respect to abandonment made without legal sanction.
113. Power is vested in the Commission to enforce, in any proper case,
the performance of the public functions of a railway company when the
same have been undertaken by the company, and such power cannot be
defeated by an illegal abandonment and tearing up of any portion of the
company's hne. Brown v. Janesville Street R. Co., 1910, 4 R. C. 757, 761.
With respect to abatement of nuisances.
114. The Commission has no authority to abate nuisances. Stresen-
Reuter et al. v. C. Sc N. W. R. Co., 1912, 9 R. C. 394, 395; Andrew et al. v.
C. B. & Q. R. Co., 1913, 12 R. C. 567, 568.
With respect to annulling of franchise of public utility,
115. The petitioner has entered the wrong forum to obtain the relief
it seeks. If the respondent has violated its franchise granted by the city
and neglected to perform any public duties which it has assumed, as alleged,
and petitionertherefore desires a forfeiture of its franchise, it should have
carried its grievance to the attorney-general, and not to this Commission,
which is without authority in the premises. State ex rel. Attorney-General
V. Janesville Water Co., 92 Wis. 496. Chilton v. Wis. El. Service Co. et al.,
1908, 2 R. C. 326, 331.
With respect to awarding damages due to negligence of carrier.
116. Damage due to the negligence of the carrier, can be recovered
only in an action in court. The Commission has no jurisdiction in the
matter. Deeves Lbr. Co. v. C. & N. W. R. Co., 1912, 8 R. C. 507, 510.
With respect to certificates of public convenience and necessity.
117. Under the present state of the law, we have no power to place
limitations, restrictions or conditions upon railway companies in the con-
struction of new railroads or extensions of existing lines in a proceeding for
a certificate of public convenience and necessity. The sole question before
the Commission in such a proceeding is, whether public convenience re-
• quires and a necessity exists for the construction of the proposed road or a
part thereof, or any proposed extension of a line of railroad, as the case may
be. Upon the determination of this question alone, the right of the railway
company to have issued to it a certificate of convenience and necessity
depends. In re Appl. Great Northern R. Co., 1909, 3 R. C. 266, 282.
206 Railroad Commission. — Power of
118. From the manifest purpose of the Public Convenience and Ne-
cessity Law, the Commission could not grant certificates on both applica-
tions for the construction of parallel roads if competition is the Only object
to be gained thereby. In re Appl. Milwaukee Lt. Ht. and Tr. Co., 1909,
3 R. C. 288, 291.
119. As the law now stands, the Commission has no authority to
authorize the construction of a portion of a proposed line after having de-
termined that public convenience and necessity require the construction of
the entire line (Eastern R. Co. of Minn. v. McCord, 1908, 136 Wis. 249).
It follows, that if the statute is to have any efficiency in accomplishing
the purpose of its enactment, it must be held that authority to construct
a line as an entirety does not imply authority to construct only a part of
such line and to abandon the remainder; otherwise the prime purpose of
the law might be defeated in many instances. In re Appl. Milwaukee <Sc
Fox River Valley R. Co., 1910, 5 R. C. 466, 475.
With respect to considering possible future value of property
in determining reasonableness of rates.
120. The law under which the Commission derives its authority to
supervise the rates of telephone companies provides, among other things,
that "the Commission shall value all the property of every pubhc utility
actually used and useful for the convenience of the public." It is the mani-
fest intention of the law that this value, and no other, be used in determin-
ing the reasonableness of rates. No authority has been shown the Com-
mission for considering value which it is expected will go into the plant,
but not yet there, for the purpose of ascertaining the reasonableness of
rates. The blanket authority to increase rates at the will of the petitioner,
up to a certain amount determined only by the expectations of the peti:-
tioner as to the necessity of increasing its investment, cannot be granted.
In re Appl. Portage Tel. Co., 1908, 2 R. C. 692. 693.
With respect to interchange of traffic between connecting carriers.
121. When it becomes necessary for the convenient transportation
of freight in carload lots that the tracks of connecting lines be joined, it
is the duty of the railroads to make track connections, and on failure to
do so the Commission may order such connection to be made by the com-
panies. City of Neenah v. Wis. Tr. Li. Ht. <Sc P. Co. et al., 1910, 4 R. C.
471, 476.
With respect to issuance of an order in violation of the terms of an
existing franchise.
122. Under the Constitution and the Public Utilities Law a franchise
granted by a city is not a contract which binds such city to the terms of
that franchise for all time to come and which forever prevents a central
state commission from making an order in violation of the terms of such
franchise. City' of Washburn v. Washburn W. Wks. Co., 1910, 6 R. C.
74, 95.
With respect to issuance of retroactive orders.
123. The law does not authorize the Commission to make orders
which are retroactive. In re Oregon Tel. Co., 1909, 3 R. C. 534, 553.
Railroad Commission. — Power of 207
With respect to joint rates.
124. To argue that if the Commission were to order a joint rate in
the present case, it would be obUged to order one in every other case that
may hereafter arise, is also to argue that if the Commission were to deny
a joint rate in the present case it would be obliged to do so in every sub-
sequent case. If this is the logical conclusion of this process of reason-
ing the statute providing for joint rates would be effectually nullified.
Plumb & Nelson Co. v. W. C. R. Co. et al.. 1906, 1 R. C. 19, 24.
125. It is within the constitutional power of the legislature to either
compel carriers to make joint rates by direct act or to confer on the Rail-
road Commission the power to order joint rates to be made. Manitowoc
Malting Co. v. W. C. R. Co. et al, 1906, 1 R. C. 69, 85.
126. In the case of carriers which are engaged almost exclusively in
transporting passengers and situated as the respondents are at Neenah,
physical connection of tracks is not an indispensable prerequisite to the
formation of business connections. The objection. interposed to the juris-
diction of the Commission is overruled and the petition will be heard upon
its merits. City of Neenah v. Wis. Tr. Lt. Ht. & P. Co. et al., 1910, 4 R. C.
471, 472, 476-477.
127. This Commission is authorized by law to make joint rates be-
tween carriers. The fact that this authority was lodged in the Commis-
sion, rather than made a general duty of the carriers, indicates that the
legislature had in mind that there were conditions under which joint rates
ought to be established, as well as conditions under which they ought not
to be put into effect. Whether in any given case joint rates should be
put in or not, is a question of fact. Conrad Schreier Co. v. C. M. & St. P.
R. Co. et al., 1910, 5 R. C. 668, 670^671.
128. The only groun^l upon which the Commission may supervise
contracts entered into by connecting railways for the division of through
rates, is an excessive division of such rates granted by one railway to
another which operates as a rebate to a shipper by reason of his owner-
ship of the road receiving such exorbitant share of the through rates, or
which, for other reasons, may be in violation of law. In re Appl. W.-G.
B. R. Co., 1908, 2 R. C. 291, 295.
With respect to joint use of street railway tracks.
129. This Commission believes that it is within its authority to decide
which of two street railway companies ordered to make joint use of tracks
shall supply the power used over the tracks in question. T. M. E. R. <Sc
L. Co. V. Chi. cfc Mil. El. Ry. Co., 1913, 13 R. C. 299, 309.
With respect to municipal ordinance affecting rates or service of
public utility.
130. The section of the statute under which these proceedings were
instituted (sec. 1797m-87) was designed to give the Commission the
power to pass upon the reasonableness of any ordinance, contract or reso-
lution of a common council directly affecting the rates or service of any
public utility or indirectly tending to place an unnecessary burden upon
the utility which might result in embarrassing it in the performance of its
208 Railroad Commission. — Power of
public function in the manner required by the Public Utilities Law. In re
Appl. Madison G. & EL Co., 1913, 11 R. C. 293, 302-303.
With respect to operation of branch line of railroad.
131. The company has not relieved itself of any duty which it owed
to the public as a common carrier, by neglecting to take the preliminary
steps provided for by statute. It is not in any position to claim immunity
by reason of its failure to do what it should have done before building the
extension in question. (Rib River Land Co. v. Upham Mfg. Co., 1909,
1 R. C. 739, 766), and it can be compelled to operate this line, even
though its board of directors failed to pass a resolution making the branch
a part of its system under sec. 1831 of the statutes. Meyer v. Rib Lake
Lbr. Co. et al, 1911, 7 R. C. 401, 406-407.
With respect to rate fixed in a special franchise to a street railway
company,
132. The Commission has the power to vary a rate fixed in a special
franchise granted by a municipality to a street railway company. {City
of Manitowoc v. Manitowoc & N. Tr. Co., 1911, 145 Wis. 13, 29-30.) City
ofNeenah v. Wis. Tr. Lt. Ht. & P. Co. et al., 1910, 6 R. G. 400, 401.
With respect to rate making.
133. The making of a non-compensatory rate would amount to a de-
prival of the railway companies of their property without due process of
law. C. M. & St. P. R. Co. v. Minnesota, 10 Sup. Ct. Rep. 462; Interstate
Commerce Commission v. B. xSc 0. R. Co., 43 Fed, Rep, 42; Smyth v. Ames,
169 U. S. 466. And in no event would the Commission have the power
to establish a higher rate for the transportation of one class of individuals
than for another. In re Construction of Ch. 362, Laws of 1905, 1905,
1 R. C. 1, 4. 5.
With respect to rates and service of railroads.
134. A company may make a concession in the matter of rates and
loading requirements which could not be imposed upon it by the Commis-
sion. The Commission is limited in the requirements it may make of
common carriers by the condition that such requirements must be reason-
able under the circumstances of the particular case under consideration.
Minneapolis Lbr. Co. v. AT. P. R. Co. et al., 1909, 4 R. C. 206, 209.
With respect to rate wars between competing railroads.
135. We assume that it is fully mthin the power of this Commission
to prevent a rate war between competing railways and to compel the
competitors to charge a rate which is reasonable under all the circum-
stances in the case. This power is clearly lodged with the Commission
by sees. 1797-12 and 1797-28 of the Railroad Commission Law, as
amended. In re Appl. Milwaukee & Fox River Valley R. Co., 1910,
5 R. C. 466, 474^75.
With respect to rate wars between competing utilities.
136. That rate wars are against publio policy is recognized in the
Public Utilities Law, for it is clearly in order to enable this Commission
Railroad Commission. — Power of 209
to prevent or stop such struggles that sec. 1797/77-99 was included therein.
Kenosha El. Ry. Co. v. Kenosha G. & El. Co., 1911, 8 R. C. 119, 120;
In re Invest. T. M. E. R. & L. Co., 1912, 9 R. G. 541, 551.
With respect to restoration of a highway crossing to former use-
fulness.
137. No argument has been advanced that changes our view that the
Commission is vested with ample authority to compel a railway company
to perform the duties imposed upon it by sec. 1836 and sec. 1299/?-l of
the statutes. Town of Rhine v. C. M. Sc St. P. R. Co., 1910, 5 R. G. 184,
188-189.
With respect to safety of bridges upon which railways are con-
structed.
138. Under ch. 590, laws of 1911, the Commission may, on its own
motion, inquire into the safety of highway bridges over which interurban
railways operate. In re West Algoma Street Bridge in Oshkosh, 1912,
8 R. G. 441, 444.
With respect to sale of tickets at less than the maximum rate
fixed by law.
139. In view of the holding of the United States supreme court, in
the case of the Lake Shore Sc Michigan Southern R. Co. v. Smith, 1898,
173 U. S. 684, the Commission cannot in any instance require the sale of
tickets at less than the maximum rate fixed by statute. Lieberman v.
C. M. & St. P. R. Co., 1909, 3 R. C. 330, 334-335..
With respect to service and facilities — Of interurban railways.
140. The law imposes upon the company the duty of furnishing
"reasonably adequate service and facilities," and this Commission is em-
powered to enforce such obligation in case of failure or neglect to perform.
City ofDe Pere v. Green Bay Tr. Co., 1910, 5 R. C. 604, 615.
Of railroads.
141 . Although the powers of the Commission relative to the regulation
of the service and facilities of railways are very extensive, they are not
without their limitations, nor are they exclusive in every instance. In
all legislation pertaining to the control and regulation of public service
corporations, the legislature seems to have exercised particular care in
preserving the right of cities, especially to control their streets, highways
and public grounds in respect to the use thereof by such corporations.
Lang et at. v. City of La Crosse et al., 1909, 3 R. G. 292, 296.
142. If existing facilities are reasonably adequate, the Commission
is without authority to order additional facilities. Homstad et al. v.
C. M. Sc St. P. R. Co., 1910, 6 R. C. 1, 4.
143. Sec. 1801 was impliedly repealed by ch. 362, laws of 1905,
which conferred upon the Commission the power to regulate the rates and
services of railway companies within the state. However, the legislature,
by ch. 483, laws of 1911, reenacted sec. 1801 with certain amendments.
This statute deprives the Commission of any discretion in the matter.
210 Railroad Commission. — Power of
It fixes the quantum of passenger service for every station coming within
the classification made. Schlosstein v. C. B. & Q. R. Co., 1911, 8 R. C.
242, 246.
With respect to service and facilities — Of street railways.
144. The Commission may regulate the service of all electric and
surface street railway companies, whether their lines are within or with-
out the limits of municipalities, or both, and may also regulate all the
facilities of such corporations devoted to the public service, subject only
to the restrictions and limitations prescribed by law. Lang et al. v. City
of La Crosse et al., 1909, 3 R. C. 292, 298.
145. The Commission has no authority to order extensions of street
railway lines. City of Merrill v. Merrill Ry. & Ltg. Co., 1910, 5. R. C.
418, 425; City of Racine v. T. M. E. R. & L. Co., 1914, 14 R. C. 148, 149.
146. The carriage of freight through the city streets by respondent
would cast an additional burden on the fee, for which abutting owners
would be entitled to compensation, and in view of the reasonable doubt
as to the existence of the authority contended for in the franchise in ques-
tion, the authority cannot be inferred. The Commission is without juris-
diction. Wis. Veterans' Home v. Waupaca El. Lt. & R. Co. et al., 1915,
15 R. C. 656, 666.
Of telephone companies.
147. Though the Commission apparently has no authority to order
the Lisbon Tel. Co. to cease giving service to subscribers along the road
named, the failure of the company to discontinue such service will render
the company liable to prosecution. In re Alleged Viol, of Law by Lisbon
Tel. Co., 1914, 14 R. C. 131, 135.
RAILROAD COMMISSION ACT.
See Railroad Law.
RAILROAD COMMISSION LAW.
See Railroad Law.
RAILROAD CROSSINGS.
See Railroads.
RAILROAD EXTENSIONS.
See Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity.
Railroad Law. — Construction of 211
RAILROAD LAW.
I. CONSTRUCTION OF LAW.
II. SCOPE AND PURPOSE OF LAW.
III. SECTIONS CONSTRUED.
I. CONSTRUCTION OF LAW.
In general — Act not self-contradictory.
( 1 . The legislature can not be charged with the absurdity of legalizing
in one section of the Railroad Commission Act that which is expressly
forbidden in other sections, and thus defeating one of the main purposes
of the act. There is no such incongruity in the act. Wisconsin Coal Co.
V. W. C. R. Co., 1909, 3 R. C. 339, 341.
Provisions adopted from Interstate Commerce Act.
2. The legislature of Wisconsin, in incorporating in ch. 362, laws of
1905, certain provisions contained in the Interstate Commerce Act,
adopted the construction placed upon such provisions by the federal
supreme court. The provision of sec. 1797-3 of the Wisconsin law,
providing that the charges made by carriers shall be reasonable and
prohibiting unjust and unreasonable charges, is substantially borrowed
from sec. 1 of the Interstate Commerce Act. The provision of subd. c of
sec. 1797-4 of the Wisconsin law, providing that the rates of charge
shown in the printed tariffs or schedules filed under the act shall be the
lawful rates of charge, is taken from sec. 6 of the Interstate Commerce
Act. So much of sec. 1797-22 of the Wisconsin law as prohibits the making
of any charge other or different from that contained in the published
tariffs, is, in substance, taken from sec. 2 of the Interstate Commerce Act.
In re Construction of Ch. 362^ Laws of 1905, 1905, 1 R. C. 1, 16.
Rights under law.
3. "The rights of the public and the rights of the railroad under this
new law (Railroad Commission Law) must be ascertained and developed
by the Railroad Commission slowly and laboriously, moving from prece-
dent to precedent as new instances arise, after the manner of the common
law courts. As was said in Bates v. Relyea et al., 1840, 23 Wend. (N. Y.),
336, 341: 'They (these instances) must, from the nature of our legal
system, be the same to the science of law, as a convincing series of experi-
ments is to any other branch of inductive philosophy.' Patience on the
part of the public and on the part of the carrier, and time will be
necessary." , (M. St. P. Sc S. S. M. R. Co. v. Railroad Commission of
Wis., 1908, 136 Wis. 146, 168-169.) Payne et al. v. Wis. Tel. Co., 1909,
4 R. C. 1, 63.
With respect to common law duties.
4. The general powers vested in the Commission by the Commission
Act relates to the regulation of services and rates of railway companies.
The duties of such companies generally prescribed by the statute, which
212 Railroad Law. — Construction of
is declaratory of the common law, are contained in sec. 1797-3. Stresen-
Reuter et al. v. C. <fc N. W. R. Co., 1912, 9 R. G. 394, 395.
With respect to common law rights.
5. The act of 1905 (Railroad Commission Act) superseded the
common law (Oshkosh Logging Tool Co. v. C. <Sc N. W. R. Co., 1907, 2
R. C. 116). Connor Land & Lbr. Co. v. C. Sz N. W. R. Co., 1911, 7 R. G.
774, 778.
6. Amendment (sec. 1797-37m) to the Railroad Gommission Act is
not merely remedial in its. character, nor does it merely give a remedy
for an existing right. It confers the right and provides the remedy to
enforce it. Oshkosh Logging Tool Co. v. C. & N. W. R. Co., 1907, 2
R. G. 116; Connor Land & Lbr. Co. v. C. & N. W. R. Co., 1911,
7 R. *G. 774, 778.
With respect to concentration commodity, transit and other spe-
cial rates.
7. Under sec. 1797-6 (ch. 362, laws of 1905), concentration commodity,
transit and other special contract rates are expressly authorized, provided
such rates are open to all shippers of a like kind of traffic under similar
circumstances and conditions. In re C. St. P. M. & 0. R. Co., 1905,
1 R. G. 16, 18.
II. SGOPE AND PURPOSE OF LAW.
Scope and purpose of Railroad Commission Act — In general.
8. The Railroad Gommission Act was designed to regulate railroads
operating within the state of Wisconsin in the same general manner that
the Interstate Commerce Act regulates interstate carriers and trafTic,
and much of the phraseology of the former was taken from the latter.
The general purpose of the two acts, as far as they are identical in subject
matter, is the same. They were both enacted to remedy certain evils
which were common in both interstate and intrastate transportation.
City of Merrill v. Merrill Ry. Sc Ltg. Co., 1910, 5 R. G. 418, 424.
Scope and purpose of Interstate Commerce Act — In general.
9. It is well understood that the purpose of the Interstate Commerce
Law is generally the same as that of the Wisconsin Railroad Law, namely,
to regulate transportation by common carrier. The public interests
which are involved in both state and interstate traffic are, in a large way,
identical, and so far as these interests are concerned, it is immaterial
whether the administrative agencies which are invoked are federal or
state; both agencies have their proper and well defined sphere of activity.
Duluth-Superior Milling Co. et al. v. N. P. R. Co., 1910, 6 R. G. 70, 73.
With respect to excessive charges based on the duly published
rate.
10. It was because of the fact that, when the schedule rate was
exacted for any shipment of freight, the shipper was without any redress
if the same were challenged and found upon investigation to be excessive,
Railroad Law. — Sections construed 213
the legislature enacted sec. 1797-37/n of the statutes as an amendment
to the original Railroad Commission Act. Wisconsin Coal Co. v. W. C. R.
Co., 1909, 3 R. C. 339, 342.
With respect to overcharges.
11. Before sec. 1797-37m (laws 1907, ch. 582) of the Wisconsin
Statutes was amended by ch. 136 of the laws of 1909, the Railroad Com-
mission could only authorize refunds in cases where the charges exacted
were in accordance with the duly published and legal rates in force, and
where they were found upon complaint of a shipper to have been either
unusual or exorbitant. The addition of the words erroneous and illegal
broadened the scope of the statute so as to include all charges, whether
in conformity with the legal tariffs or otherwise. Kiel Wooden Ware Co.
V. C. M. <Sc St. P. R. Co., 1909, 3 R. C. 597, 599-600.
With respect to overcharges exacted in violation of the act.
12. The contention that the petitioner should first have filed its
claim for a refund with the carrier and waited ninety days for action
thereon in accordance with sec. 32 of the Railroad Commission Act
(laws 1905, ch. 362), evinces a misapprehension of the purpose and scope,
of such section of the statutes. Sec. 32 has no application to a claim
presented upon the ground that the legal rate exacted is either unusual
or exorbitant, but relates to overcharges exacted in violation of the act.
Wisconsin Coal Co. v. W. C. R. Co., 1909, 3 R. C. 339, 341-342.
With respect to reduced rate service.
13. The legislature in the enactment of sec. 1797-8 has, we think,
wisely recognized existing conditions and provided that the wholesale
principle might be applied to the passenger trafTic, provided no discrim-
ination was practiced between individuals. It expressed its wish, as far
as it could legally do so, to the effect that it did not desire such conditions
to be disturbed. It was the intent of the legislature to prevent injustice,
not to prescribe rules which would hamper the carriers in carrying on the
details of their business or prevent them from adopting reasonable
methods for increasing it. Buell v. C. M. <Sz St. P. R. Co., 1907, 1 R. C.
324, 503.
III. SECTIONS CONSTRUED.
Sec. 1797, railroad companies not required by law to furnish and operate
spur tracks. Plowright Sc Menzies v. C. Sc N. W. R. Co., 1908,
2 R. C. 553, 572.
Sec. 1797-1 to 1797-38, Railroad Commission Law, effect on existing
rates. Cityof Neenah v. Wis. Tr. Lt. Ht. & P. Co. et al., 1911,
6 R. C. 398, 400.
Sec. 1797-1 to 1797-38, superseded the common law. Connor Land <&
Lbr. Co. V. C. Sc N. W. R. Co., 1911, 7 R. C. 774, 778.
Sec. 1797-2, definition of the term "railroad." In re Appl. of Ch. 362,
Laws 1905 to Street Railways, 1906, 1 R. C. 178, 179.
Sec. 1797-2, meaning of the term "transportation." Clark v. C. M. Sz
St. P. R. Co., 1907, 1 R. G. 733, 734.
214 Railroad Law. — Sections construed
Sec. 1797-3, duty of street railway company as to service and facilities.
City of Merrill v. Merrill Ry. & Lt. Co., 1910, 5 R. C. 418, 424.
Sec. 1797-3, safety as one of the elements of reasonably adequate service.
Bradley v. C. M. & St. P. R. Co., 1909, 4 R. C. 136, 138.
Sec. 1797-4, all published rates in force April 1, 1905, constituted maximum
tariffs up to December 31, 1905. Menasha Wooden Ware Co. v.
W. C. R. Co., 1906, 1 R. C. 108, 110.
Sec. 1797-6, concentration, commodity, transit and other special contract
rates permitted under certain conditions. Plumb & Nelson Co.
u. W. C. R. Co. et al, 1906, 1 R. C. 16, 18.
Sec. 1797-6, permissible to charge reduced rates on machinery and
materials used in construction of manufacturing plants. In re
Rates on Construction Material for Mfg. Plants, 1906« 1 R. G.
210, 213.
Sec. 1797-8, free transportation, when permissible. In re North. Wis.
Farmers' Assn., 1906, 1 R. C. 175.
Sec. 1797-8, homeseekers' tickets may be sold at reduced rates. In re
Construction of Ch. 362, Laws 1905, 1 R. C. 1, 10.
Sec. 1797-8, reduced rate service, railroad may furnish under certain
conditions. Buell v. C. M. Sc St. P. R. Co., 1907, 1 R. C. 324, 503.
Sec. 1797-9, subsec. 2, duty of two or more railroads in city, village or
town to construct, maintain and use an adequate union station.
McMillan et al. v. C. & N.W. R. Co. et al., 1914, 15 R. C. 227, 233.
Sec. 1797-11, interchange of traffic, legal obligation of railroad companies.
Clark V. C. M. & St. P. R. Co., 1907, 1 R. C. 590, 594, 733, 734.
Sec. 1797-11, interchange of traffic, private tracks, Commission's control.
City of Ashland v. M. St. P. & S. S. M. R. Co.. 1915, 15 R. C.
816. 820.
Sec. 1797-11/71, construction of spur track, intervening petitioners may not
be heard in proceedings relating thereto. Jefferson Ice Co. v.
C. & AT. W. R. Co., 1908, 2 R. C. 431, 439.
Sec. 1797-11/71, definition of statutory term "practically indispensable."
Hurst V. N. P. R. Co., 1909, 3 R. C. 283, 286.
Sec. 1797-1 1/n, industrial tracks, to be constructed by railroad company
at expense of industry seeking same. Osceola Mill & Elev. Co. v.'
M. St. P. & S. S. M. R. Co., 1914, 15 R. C. 416, 419.
Sec. 1797-11/77, switch connections, spur track constructed as integral part
of railroad system. Eden Ind. Lime <Sc Stone Co. v. C. &. N. W. R.
Co., 1910, 4 R. C. 788, 793.
Sec. 1797-12, complaint to compel investigation by Commission. City of
Neenah v. Wis. Tr. Lt. Ht. Sz P. Co. et al., 1911, 6 R. C. 398, 400.
Sec. 1797-12, power of Commission to regulate rates. Commission not
limited by contents of petitioner's complaint. Ringle et al. v.
C. M. iSc St. P. R. Co., 1911, 7 R. C. 598, 599.
Sec. 1797-12 and 1797-28, power of Commission to prevent rate wars be-
tween competing carriers. In re Appl. Milw. Sc Fox R. Val. R.
Co., 1910, 5 R. C. 466, 474.
Sec. 1797-12e, Commission, jurisdiction of, over railroad crossings. Village
of ML Horeb v. C. & N. W. R. Co., 1913, 12 R. C. 495, 498.
Railroad Law. — Sections construed 215
Sec. 1797-12e, railroad crossings, protection of. Town of Lucas v. C. St.
P. M. & 0. R. Co., 1913, 12 R. C. 703, 704. ,
Sec. 1797-12e, power of Commission to require an alteration in a crossing
not at grade upon a petition brought by the common council of a
city. City of Monroe v. C. M. <k St. P. R. Co., 1914, 14 R. C. 176,
178.
Sec. 1797-12e, railroad crossings, construction and maintenance of viaduct
and approach, apportionment of cost. City of Superior v. N. P.
R. Co. et al., 1911, 6 R. C. 674, 682.
Sec. 1797-12e, railroad crossing, power of Commission to order construc-
tion. Town of Remington v. C. M. cfc St. P. R. Co., 1915, 15 R. C.
609, 610.
Sec. 1797-12o, duty of railroad company to construct fences for protection
of live stock. Dent et al. v. C. M. d: St. P. R. Co., 1914, 15 R. C.
203, 204.
Sec. 1797-14, joint rates, division of among connecting carriers. In re
Appl. \y.-G. B. R. Co., 1908, 2 R. C. 291, 294.
Sec. 1797-14, sub./, power of Commission to order joint rates. Plumb Sc
Nelson Co. v. W. C. R. Co. et al., 1906, 1 R. C. 19, 24.
Sec. 1797-28, power of Commission to authorize emergency rates. In re
Construction Ch. 362, Laws 1905, 1905, 1 R. C. 1, 6.
Sec. 1797-31, violation of the law, investigation by Commission. In re
Crossing on C. & N. W. R. in Town of Gale, 1914, 14 R. C. 445, 447.
Sec. 1797-32, Commission has' no jurisdiction over claims against carriers.
Hodges v. W. C. R. Co., 1906, 1 R. C. 300, 302.
Sec. 1797-35, filing of rates with Commission, what constitutes published
rate. Menasha Wooden Ware Co. v. W. R. C. Co., 1906, 1 R. C.
108, 115.
Sec. 1797-37/n, reparation, law not retroactive. Oshkosh Legging .Tool Co.
V. C. & N. W. R. Co., 1907, 2 R. C. 116; City of Superior v. N. P. R.
Co., 1907, 2 R. C. 126, 128; Dells Paper & Pulp Co. v. C. St. P. M.
& 0. R. Co., 1907, 2 R. C. 129, 130; Chippewa Lbr. & Boom Co. v.
W.C. R. Co., 1908, 2 R. C. 607, 609.
Sec. 1797-37/77, reparation, limitation of statute. Menasha Paper Co. v.
W. C. R. Co., 1908, 2 R. C. 300, 301.
Sec. 1797-37/77, reparation, limitation of the statute, jurisdiction of courts
in cases involving overcharges upon which the limitation of the
statute has run. Connor Land Sc Lbr. Co. v. C. & N. W. R. Co.,
1911, 7 R. C. 774, 776.
Sec. 1797-37/77, reparation, proceedings for recovery, person aggrieved
■must petition Commission. Wausau Adv. Assn. v. C. 6c N. W. R.
Co., 1913, 12 R. C. 433, 438; 1914, 13 R. C..772, 774.
Sec. 1797-37/77, reparation, reduction of rate not to be construed as an ad-
mission of prior unreasonableness. Steven & Jarvis Lbr. Co. v. C.
S:t. P. M. & 0. R. Co., 1907, 2 R. C. 131, 134; Northern Wood Co. v.
M. St. P. & S. S. M. R. Co. et. al., 1911,8 R. C. 62, 63; Wis. Lakes
Ice & Cartage Co. v. C. & N. W. R. Co., 1912, 11 R. C. 62, 63.
Sec. 1797-37/77, showing of damages not necessary to secure refund under
statute. Flambeau Paper Co. v. C. M. & St. P. R. Co. et al., 1913,
11 R. C. 699, 702.
216 Railroad Law. — Sections construed
Sec. 1797-43, power of Commission respecting certificate of public con-
venience and necessity. In re AppL Milw. Sc Fox R. Val. R. Co.,
1910, 5 R. G. 466, 475.
Sec. 1797-51, certificate of public convenience and necessity, power of
Commission respecting certificate. In re AppL Great N. R. Co.,
^^ 1909, 3 R. C. 266, 280.
Sec. 1797-56, apportionment of expense of railroad crossing among rail-
roads concerned. In re AppL W. & N. M. R. Co., 1908, 2 R. C.
362, 369.
Sec. 1801, jurisdiction of Commission over train service. Callen et aL v.
C.M.iSc St. P. R. Co., 1914, 14 R. C. 581, 583.
Sec. 1801, train service, adequacy of. Schlosstein v. C. B. & Q. R. Co.,
1911, 8 R. C. 242, 246.
Sec. 1802, railroad companies not required by law to furnish and operate
spur tracks. Plowright & Menzies v. C. & N. W. R. Co., 1908, 2
R. C. 553, 572.
Sec. 1802, switch connections, construction of spur track, compulsory
connection with railroad at the instance of private parties. Eden
Ind. Lime & Stone Co. v. C. <Sc N. W. R. Co., 1910, 4 R. C. 788, 794.
Sec. 1802a, warehouse sites on railroad right of way. Rust v. M. St. P. &
S. S. M. R. Co., 1914, 14 R. C. 251, 252.
Sec. 1802a, warehouse site on railroad right of way within yard limits of
station or terminal. Roberts Produce Co. v. C. St. P. M. & 0. R.
Co., 1910, 5 R. C. 207, 211.
Sec. 1802c, track connections to facilitate interchange of traffic between
railroad companies. City of Ashland v. M. St. P. & S. S. M. R. Co.,
1915, 15 R. C. 816, 820.
Sec. 1809, speed of trains, regulation of speed within a municipality. Tate
.V. C. B. & Q. R. Co., 1908, 2 R. C. 348, 349.
Sec. 1809y, locomotive headlights, merits of, in connection with statutory
requirements. In re Invest. Locomotive Headlights, 1912, 11 R. C.
137, 138.
Sec. 1810, railroad company required to provide suitable and convenient
farm crossings. Von Rueden v. C. M. & St. P. R. Co., 1914, 15
R. C. 272, 274.
Sec. 1831, operation of branch as common carrier, company under obliga-
tion to operate regardless of failure of directors to take preliminary
steps provided by statute. Meyer v. Rib Lake Lbr. Co. et aL, 1911,
7 R. C. 401, 406.
Sec. 1831a, spur track constructed as integral part of railroad system.
Eden Ind. Lime & Stone Co. v. C. & N. W. R. Co., 1910, 4 R. C.
788, 794.
Sec. 1831a, railroads, right of way and other interests in land, rights in
and use of highways and public places. Farmers Store Co. v. C.
St. P. M. <fc 0. R. Co., 1908, 3.R. C. 42, 50.
Sec. 1832, alteration of route, terminus defined. Rib River Land Co. v.
Upham Mfg. Co. et aL, 1907, 1 R. C. 739, 765.
Sec. 1832, change of line, construction of cut-off and abandonment of old
line. Hart et aL v. M. St. P. & S. S. M. R. Co., 1911, 7 R. C. 46.3,
464.
Railroads. — Construction, maintenance and equipment fr2M
Sec. 1836, railroad shall restore to usefulness any highway crossed by its
line. Schroeder Lbr. Co. v. M. St. P. & S S. M. R. Co., 1913, 12
R. C. 701, 705; Town of Menomonee v. C. & N. W. R. Co., 1914, 14
R. C. 549, 551.
Sec. 1897, railroad companies not required by law to furnish and operate
spur tracks. Plowright & Menzies v. C. & N. W. R. Co., 1908, 2
R. C. 553, 572.
RAILROADS.
See also Carriers; Connecting Carrieps; Interurban Railways;
Station Facilities; Street Railways; Switch Connections;
Train Service.
Discrimination as between localities, see Discrimination, 49-52, 85.
as between shippers, see Discrimination, 66-84.
Paralleling of railroads, purpose of Public Convenience and Necessity Law
to prevent needless paralleling of railroads, see Certificate of Pub-
lic Convenience and Necessity, 3, 6.
I. CONSTRUCTION. MAINTENANCE AND EQUIPMENT.
a. In general. d. Culverts.
b. Crossings — railroad by high- e. Interlocking plants.
way. f. Locomotive headlights.
c. Crossings — Railroad by rail- g. Tell tales.
road.
II. CONTROL AND REGULATION,
a. In general.
III. OPERATION.
a. Filing of rates. c. Rights of common carriers.
b. Requirements as to service and d. Speed of trains.
facilities. e. Snipping directions.
IV. RIGHT OF WAY AND OTHER INTERESTS IN LAND.
ACCOUNTING.
See Accounting, 127-137.
I. CONSTRUCTION, MAINTENANCE AND EQUIPMENT.
a. IN GENERAL.
Abandonment of service or equipment.
1. It is not within the power of a railway company, under the provi-
sions of subdiv. 3, sec. 1828, Statutes of 1898, to lease or discontinue the
use of any part of its property that is necessary to enable it to perform its
duty to the public as a common carrier. Superior Board of Trade v. G.
N. R. Co. et ai, 1907, 1 R. C. 619, 635.
Construction of railroad — Approval of specifications.
2. Application for approval of specification for construction of railroad
and for order determining manner of crossing the tracks of other railroads.
Held: That the specification submitted meets the requirement of the
statutes and the regulations of the Commission. Crossings and safety
218 Railroads. — Construction, maintenance and equipment
devices ordered as stated in the orders. In re AppL W. <Sc N. M. R. Co.,
1908, 2 R. C. 362; In re AppL M. St. P. Sc S. S. M. R. Co., 1908, 2 R. G.
386.
b. CROSSINGS — RAILROAD BY HIGHWAY.
Alteration of.
3. For the sake of public safety, the present highway should be altered
so as to cross the track at right angles. The Commission assumes that if
the proceedings of the town board to lay out the highway over the point
in question should be declared invalid, new proceedings will be instituted.
Town ofElcho v. C. & N. W. R. Co., 1914, 14 R. C. 796.
4. The respondent is ordered to construct and maintain a highway,
in the manner specified, within its right of way limits. As the alterations
ordered are necessary for compliance with sec. 1299/z-l of the Statutes,
the entire cost is assessed against the respondent. Town of Campbell v.
C. B. Sz Q. R. Co., 1914, 15 R. C. 21.
5. Railroad ordered to raise level of track and highway. Town of
Richmond v. W. & N. R. Co., 1914, 15 R. G. 309.
6. The G. & N. W. Ry. Go. is ordered to render the crossing safe and
suitable for public travel, to submit to the Commission for approval such
plans and specifications for the changes required. Town of Westport v.
C. & N. W. R. Co., 1912, 9 R. G. 218.
Blockading of crossings by trains.
7. There is no evidence to show that there is serious abuse in the
blockading of crossings by trains. If such blockading were prevalent,
the city has the power to prevent it under the General Charter Law (sec.
925-52, subd. 31). Citij of Green Bay v. C. M. & St. P. R. Co., 1913, 12
R. G. 383.
Construction of. ^
8. Whether the necessary steps were taken to lay out the highway in
the manner prescribed by statute can only be determined by the courts.
The town supervisors are the judges, under the statute, of the necessity*
for the highway. The Commission, however, may determine the manner
and mode of crossing prior to the actual establishment of th^ highway
and independently of the question whether the highway has been law-
fully established or not. (Wis. St. sec. 1797-12e.) Town of Gillett v. C. Sc
N. W. R. Co., 1912, 9 R. G. 535, 536.
9. The Commission can take no action in the matter of the crossings
desired by the petitioner at Cook, Wood and Church sts. until the streets
named have been legally opened by the village over the railroad right of
way and petition is made to the Commission for the determination of the
mode and manner of crossing, as provided in sec. 1797-12e of the Statutes.
Village of Unity v. M. St. P. <Sc S. S. M. R. Co., 1913, 13 R. C. 430.
10. The respondent is ordered to construct, at the point in question,
a suitable grade crossing approximately at right angles to its track. The
petitioner shall bear 50 per cent and respondent 50 per cent of the cost as
determined by the Commission. Town of Elcho v. C. Sc N. W. R. Co,,
1914, 14 R. C. 796.
Railroads. — Construction, maintenance and equipment 219
11. The respondent is ordered to install and maintain at the farm
crossing, located about three miles west of Eagle and adjacent to peti-
tioner's property, suitable cattle guards and wing fences. Von Rueden
V. C. M. <Sc St. P. R. Co., 1914, 15 R. C. 272.
12. Railroad company ordered to construct a grade crossing in the
town of Superior, Douglas Co. Cost apportioned 40 per cent to peti-
tioner' and 60 per cent to respondent. Town of Superior v. G. N. R. Co.,
1914, 15 R. C. 300.
Public necessity.
13. The question of the public necessity of a proposed crossing is to
be determined by the municipality in interest and the Commission is
without jurisdiction in the matter. To hold otherwise would in effect
place the Commission in the position of dictating a municipality's high-
way development. The respondent is ordered to construct a suitable
grade crossing at the point in question, furnishing all necessary material
and labor and performing all necessary work in fulfilling the provisions of
the order. The petitioner is to pay the respondent 50 per cent of the
cost. Town of Remington v. C. M. Sc St. P. R. Co., 1915, 15 R. C. 609.
Elimination of. ,,
14. Crossings were ordered to be eliminated in: In re C. M. & St. P.
Crossing near Camp Douglas, 1913, 12 R. C. 524; In re Barron^s Crossing
in Town of Almena, 1914, 14 R. C. 128.
Mode and manner of crossing — Determination of.
15. Although the petition does not follow the technical wording of
the law (sec. 1 797-1 2e) and state "that public safety requires the deter-
mination" of the mode and manner of the crossing in question, the allega-
tions make it clear that the power of the Commission is invoked to pro-
vide for the requirements of public safety. The fact that a particular
mode of crossing is, in a given instance, the only practicable one, does not
preclude the Commission from acting to determine the mode and manner
of crossing, for other methods may be possible although less suitable to
the needs of the situation under consideration. Village of Mt. Horeb v.
C. & N. W. R. Co., 1913, 12 R. C. 495, 498.
16. The mode and manner of the crossing of the respondent's tracks
by the proposed highway can be determined independently of the ques-
tion whether the highway has been lawfully established or not, for the
actual laying out of a highway is not a condition precedent to the jurisdic-
tion of the Commission. Town of Gillett v. C. & N. W. R. Co., 1912, 9 R.
C. 535, 536; Town of Elcho v. C. cfc N. W. R. Co., 1914, 14 R. C. 796, 798.
17. Section 1797-12e of the statutes imposes upon the Commission
the duty of determining the mode and manner of a proposed crossing in
the interest of public safety upon petition of the municipal authorities or
the railway company. It also requires the Commission to apportion the
cost of such crossing between the railway company and the municipality
in interest. Town of Elcho v. C. Sc N. W. R. Co., 1914, 14 R. C. 796, 801;
Town of Superior v. G. N. R. Co., 1914, 15 R. C. 300.
220 Railroads. — Construction, maintenance and equipment
b. CROSSINGS — RAILROAD BY HIGHWAY. — Continued.
Mode and manner of crossing — Determination of in particular
cases.
18. The mode and manner of crossing determined in : M. S. & N. W.
R. Co. V. Town of Lisbon et al., 1910, 5 R. C. 592; M. S. & N. W. R. Co. v.
Town of Lebanon, 1910, 6 R. C. 424.
Necessity for highway and crossing.
19. Under the statute the town supervisors are the judges of the
necessity of the laying out of a highway. Town of Gillett v. C. & N. W.
R. Co., 1912, 9 R. C. 535, 536.
Protection of — Annunciators.
20. The installation of annunciators ordered: Fall Creek v. C. St. P.
M. & 0. R. Co., 1907, 1 R. C. 310; Village of New Holstein v. C. M. Sc St. P.
R. Co., 1909. 4 R. G. 364; City of Marinette v. C. M. Sc St. P. R. Co., 1910,
5 R. C. 455; City of Oshkosh v. C. M. & St. P. R. Co., 1911, 8 R. C. 75;
City of Milwaukee v. C. M. Sc St. P. R. Co., et al., 1913, 11 R. G. 353; City
of Lady smith v. M. St. P. Sc S. S. M. R. Co., 1913, 11 R. G. 554; Village of
Plover V. G. B. Sc W. R. Co., 1913, 11 R. G. 727; City of Ripon u. C. M. Sc
St. P. R. Co., 1913, 12 R. G. 100; Village of Waunakee v. C. Sc N. W. R.
Co., 1913, 12 R. G. 380; Village of Spencer v. M. St. P. Sc S. S. M. R. Co.,
1913, 12 R. G. 525; City of Ft. Atkinson v. C. Sc N. W. R. Co., 1913, 13 R. G.
69; Village of Merrillan v. C. St. P. M. Sc 0. R. Co., 1914, 14 R. C. 315;
City ofBoscobel v. C. M. Sc St. P. R. Co., 1914, 15 R. G. 296.
Automatic alarm.
21. Installation of automatic alarm ordered: Fall Creek v. C. St. P.
M. Sc 0. R. Co., 1907, 1 R. G. 310; Village of Luxemburg v. K. G. B. Sc
W. R. Co., 1909, 4 R. G. 244; Village of Fall River v. C. M. Sc St. P. R. Co.,
1910, 4 R. G. 778; Town of Wauzeka v. C. M. Sc St. P. R. Co., 1912, 10 R. G.
426; City of Beaver Dam v. C. M. Sc St. P. R. Co., 1912, 10 R. G. 474.
Automatic alarm with illuminated sign.
22. Railroad ordered to install automatic alarm with illuminated
sign for night indication: Town of Wauwatosa v. C. Sc N. W. R. Co., 1911,
7 R. G. 451; 453; 625; Village of Marathon City v. C. Sc N. W. R. Co., 1911,
8 R. G. 28; In re Richfield Crossing Accident on C. M. Sc St. P. R., 1911,
8 R. G. 287; In re So. Commercial St. Crossing at Neenah, 1912, 8 R. G.
463; In re C. M. Sc St. P. Crossing near New Lisbon, 1912, 8 R. G. 511;
Cunningham et al. v. C. M. Sc St. P. R. Co., 1911, 8 R. G. 513; In re C. St. P.
M. Sc 0. R. Crossing near Columbia Sta., 1912, 8 R. G. 516; In re Crossing
near Calvert on C. B. Sc Q. R. Co. et al., 1912, 8 R. G. 519; In re C. M. Sc
St. P. R. Crossing near Camp Douglas, 1912, 9 R. G. 328; In re Mt. Morris
Ave. Crossing at Wautoma, 1912, 9 R. G. 365; In re Division St. Crossing
in Dodgeville, 1912, 9 R. G. 367; In re C. Sc N. W. R. Crossing near Milton
Jd., 1912, 9 R. G. 379; Inre C. Sc N. W. R. Crossing in Beaver Dam, 1912,
9 R. G. 381; In re C. Sc N.'W. R. Crossing near Dodgeville, 1912, 9 R. G.
520; In re Crossing on Sheboygan Ry. Sc El. Co., 1912, 9 R. G. 525; In re
Crossing near Schleisingerville, 1912, 9 R. G. 528; Town of Buffalo v.
M. S. Sc N. W. R. Co., 1912, 9 R. G. 538; City of Columbus v. C. M. Sc St. P.
Railroads. — Construction, mainienance and equipment 221
R. Co., 1912, 9 R. C. 576; Town of Mentor v. C. St. P. M. & 0. R. Co.,
1912, 10 R. C. 434; Town of Albany v. C. M. & St. P. R. Co., 1912, 10 R. G.
483; Town of Wayne v. M. St. P. Sc S. S. M. R. Co., 1912, 10 R. C. 493;
Miller v. C. M. Sc St. P. R. Co., 1912, 10 R. C. 499; Town of Salem v. C. &
N. W. R. Co., 1912, 10 R. C. 510; In re Invest. C. St. P. M. Sc 0. R. Cross-
ing, Yolo, 1912, 10 R. C. 528; Streater et al. v. C. St. P. M. Sc 0. R. Co.,
1912, 10 R. G. 531; Wolf v. M. St. P. Sc S. S. M. R. Co":, 1912, 10 R. G.
615; Village of Mt. Horeb v. C. Sc N. W. R. Co., 1912, 10 R. G. 623; Town
of Hewitt V. C. St. P. M. S: 0. R. Co., 1912, 11 R. G. 79; Town of Byron v.
M. St. P. Sc S. S. M. R. Co., 1912, 11 R. G. 95; Town of Salem v. C. Sc
N. W. R. Co., 1913, 11 R. G. 322; City of Milwaukee v. C. M. Sc St. P. R.
Co. et al., 1913, 11 R. G. 353, 362; Town of Waterford v. M. St. P. Sc S. S.
M. R. Co., 1913, 11 R. G. 436; Happel et al. v. M. St. P. Sc S. S. M. R. Co.,
1913, 11 R. G. 575; Town of Richfield v. M. St. P. Sc S. S. M. R. Co., 1913,
11 R. G. 586; Town of Lucas v. C. St. P. M. Sc 0. R. Co., 1913, 11 R. G.
592; Town of Stanton v. C. St. P. M. Sc 0. R. Co., 1913, 11 R. G. 595;
Town of Wilton v. C. Sc N. W. R. Co., 1913, 11 R. G. 598; Town of Merton
V. C. Sc N. W. R. Co., 1913, 11 R. G. 606; Village of Thorp v. M. St. P. Sc
S. S. M. R. Co., 1913, 11 R. G. 609; Town- of Milwaukee v. C. Sc N. W.
R. Co., 1913, 11 R. G. 615; ToV)n of Almena v. M. St. P. Sc S. S. M. R. Co.,
1913, 11 R. G. 621; Village of Elk Mound v. C. St. P. M. Sc 0. R. Co.,
1913, 11 R. G. 654; Town of Pewaukee v. C. M. Sc St. P. R. Co., 1913, 11
R. G. 658; Town of Beaver Dam v. C. M. Sc St. P. R. Co., 1913, 11 R. G.
662; Town of Somerset v. M. St. P. Sc S. S. M. R. Co., 1913, 11 R. G. 730;
City of Marshfield v. C. Sc N. W. R. Co. et al., 1913, 12 R. G. 59; City of
Ripon v. C. M. Sc St. P. R. Co., 1913, 12 R. G. 100; Town of Ashippun v.
M. S. Sc N. W. R. Co., 1913, 12 R. G. 119; Town of Lyndon v. C. M. Sc
St. P. R. Co., 1913, 12 R. G. 251; Town of Howard v. M. St. P. Sc S. S. M.
R. Co., 1913, 12 R. G. 254; Town of New Berlin v. C. Sc N. W. R. Co. et al,
1913, 12 R. G. 358; Town of Oshkosh v. M. St. P. Sc S. S. M. R. Co. et al,
1913, 12 R. G. 372; Town of Millston v. C. St P.M. Sc 0. R. Co., 1913,
12 I^.G. 400; Village of Cambria et al v. C. M. Sc St. P. R. Co., 1913, 12
R. G. 501; Town of St Croix Falls v. M. St P. Sc S. S. M. R. Co.,. 1913.
12 R. G. 529; Town of Deerfield v. C. Sc N. W. R. Co., 1913, 12 R. G.
676; Town of Oakfield v. C. Sc N. W. R. Co., 1913, 12 R. G. 683; City
of Ft. Atkinson v. C. Sb N. W. R. Co., 1913, 13 R. G. 69; Village of
Baldwin v. C. St. P. M. Sc 0. R. Co., 1913, 13 R. G. 76; Town of Fitchburg
v. I. C. R. Co., 1913, 13 R. G. 403; Town of La Prairie v. C. Sc N. W. R. Co.,
1913, 13 R. G. 440; Town of Madison v. I. C. R. Co., 1914, 13 R. G. 608;
Town of Montrose v. I. C. R. Co., 1914, 13 R. G. 613; Town of Cleveland v.
C. Sc N. W. R. Co., 1914, 13 R. G. 729; City of Monroe v. I. C. R. Co., 1914,
14 R. G. 118; Village of M err Ulan v. C. St. P. M. Sc 0. R. Co., 1914, 14 R. G.
315; Town of Sullivan v. C. Sc N. W. R. Co., 1914, 14 R. G. 320; In re C. M.
Sc St. P. R. Crossings in Cross Plains, 1914, 14 R. G. 343; Town of Howard
V. M. St P. Sc S. S. M. R. Co., 1914, 14 R. G. 433; Town of Wien v. C. Sc
N. W. R. Co., 1914, 14 R. G. 435; Town of Richmond v.W. Sc N. R. Co.,
1914, 14 R. G. 546; In re Hanchett Crossing in Town of Blooming Grove,
1914, 15 R. G. 45; Town of Madison v. I. C. R. Co., 1914, 15 R. G. 108;
In re Marinette Ave. Crossing in Marinette, 1914, 15 R. G. 200; City of
222 Railroads. — Construction, maintenance and equipment
Ft. Atkinson v. C. & N. W. R. Co., 1914, 15 R. C. 250; Town of Amherst
V. M. St. P. Sc S. S. M. R. Co., 1914, 15 R. C. 494; Village of Cadott v.
M. St. P. & S. S. M. R. Co., 1915, 15 R. C. 596; Town of Wheaton v.
M. St. P. & S. S. M. R. Co., 1915, 15 R. C. 667; City of New Richmond
V. C. St. P. M. Sc 0. R. Co., 1915, 15 R. G. 752; Town of Fairchild v. C.
St. P. M. &' 0. R. Co., 1915, 15 R. C. 755.
h. CROSSINGS— RAILROAD BY HIGHWAY. — Continued.
Protection of — -Automatic flagman.
23. The respondent is ordered to install and maintain an "Automatic
Flagman" or some other suitable automatic device for protecting travelers
both by day and by night, plans to be submitted for approval. Town of
Geneva v. C. Sc N. W. R. Co., 1914, 14 R. C. 481.
Cattle guards.
24. Cattle guards ordered installed: Von Rueden v. C. M. Sc St. P.
R. Co., 1914, 15 R. C. 272. ♦
Choice of methods.
25. In determining which of several proposed methods of crossing
protection shall be adopted the effect of each upon probable future con-
ditions may properly be considered. Whenever the choice of one method
will completely eliminate the dangerous features of a crossing without
imposing undue hardship upon the interested parties, that method should
be used. Town of Maple Grove v. M. St. P. Sc S. S. M. R. Co., 1913, 12
R. C. 686, 687-689.
Discontinuance of flying switches.
26. Railroad ordered to discontinue making flying switches at
crossings: City of Boscobel v. C. M. S: St. P. R. Co., 1912, 10 R. G. 423;
City ofMarshfield v. C. Sc N. W. R. Co. et al., 1913, 12 R. C. 59.
Flagmen.
27. Railroad ordered to place flagmen at crossings: City of Marinette
v. C. M. Sc St. P. R. Co., 1910, 5 R. C. 455; City of Oshkosh v. C. M. Sc
St. P. R. Co., 1911, 8 R. C. 291; In re So. Commercial St. Crossing at
Neenah, 1912, 8 R. G. 463; Blackman et al. v. C. Sc N. W. R. Co., 1912,
9 R. C. 50; In re C. M. Sc St. P. R. Crossing at Beaver Dam, 1912, 9 R. G.
523; City of Columbus v. C. M. Sc St. P. R. Co., 1912, 9 R. G. 576; /n re
Invest. Division St. Crossing in Dodgeville, 1912, 11 R. G. 151; City of
Sparta v. C. S: N. W. R. Co., 1912, 11 R. G. 165; Town of Salem v. C. Sc
N. W. R. Co., 1913, 11 R. G. 322; City of Lady smith v. M. St. P. Sc S. S.
M. R. Co., 1913, 11 R. G. 325; City of Milwaukee v. C. M. S: St. P. R. Co.
et al.', 1913, 11 R. G. 344; 350; 353; 362; City of Ladysmith v. M. St. P.Sc
S. S. M. R. Co., 1913, 11 R. G. 554; Village of Thorp v. M. St. P. Sc S. S.
M. R. Co., 1913, 11 R. G. 609; Town of Milwaukee v. C. Sc N. W. R. Co.,
1913, 11 R. G. 615; Town of Farmington v. M. St. P. Sc S. S. M. R. Co.,
1913, 11 R. G. 624; Village of Elk Mound v. C. St. P. M. Sc 0. R. Co.,
1913, 11 R. G. 654; Village of Plover v. G. B. Sc W. R. Co., 1913, 11 R. G.
727; City of Marshfield v. C. Sc N. W. R. Co. et al., 1913, 12 R. G. 59;
City ofRipon v. C. M. Sc St. P. R. Co., 1913, 12 R. G. 100; Town of Millston
Railroads. — Construction, maintenance and equipment 223
u. C. St. P. M. & 0. R. Co., 1913, 12 R. C. 400; Village of Spencer v. M.
St. P. Sc S. S. M. R. Co., 1913, 12 R. C. 525; Village of Cedar Grove v.
C. & N. W. R. Co. et al., 1913, 12 R. G. 712; City of Ft. Atkinson v. C. &
N. W. R. Co., 1913, 13 R. C. 69; In re C. M. & St. P. Crossing in Eau
Claire, 1913, 13 R. C. 74; Village of Baldwin v. C. St. P. M. & 0. R. Co.,
1913, 13 R. G. 76; City of Grand Rapids v. G. B. & W. R. Co. et al., 1913,
13 R. G. 395; Town of La Prairie v. C. & N. W. R. Co., 1913, 13 R. G. 440;
In re C. M. & St. P. R. Crossing in Eau Claire, 1914, 13 R. G. 628; In re
Drummond Road Crossing in Eau Claire, 1914, 14 R. G. 104; In re
Vine St. Crossing in Marshfield, 1914, 14 R. G. 110; City of Monroe v.
I. C. R. Co., 1914, 14 R. G. 118; Village of Merrillan v. C. St. P. M. 'Sc
0. R. Co., 1914, 14 R. G. 315; Town of Sullivan v. C. & N. W. R. Co.,
1914, 14 R. G. 320; In re Marinette Ave. Crossing in Marinette, 1914,
15 R. G. 200; City of Ft. Atkinson v. C. & N. W. R. Co., 1914, 15 R. G. 250;
City of Boscobel v. C. M. Sc St. P. R. Co., 1914, 15 R. G. 296; City of New
Richmond v. C. St. P. M. Sc 0. R. Co., 1915, 15 R. G. 752.
Gates.
28. Railroad ordered to install and operate gates at crossings: City
of Racine v. C. Sc N. W. R. Co., 1912, 9 R. G. 354; City of Milwaukee v.
C. M. Sc St. P. R. Co., 1912, 9 R. G. 515; 1913, 11 R. G. 344, 350, 353;
In re Invest. Aldrich St. Crossing, Milwaukee, 1912, 11 R. G. 147; City of
Milwaukee v. C. Sc N. W. R. Co., 1913, 11 R. G. 360; In re Invest. Hartland
Crossing on C. M. Sc St. P. R. Co., 1913, 11 R. G. 432; City ofLadysmith v.
M. St. P. Sc S. S. M. R. Co., 1913, 11 R. G. 554; City of Oconomowoc v.
C. M. Sc St. P. R. Co., 1913, 12 R. G. 84; Village of Waunakee v. C. Sc
N. W. R. Co., 1913, 12 R. G. 380; City of Racine v. C. M. Sc St. P. R. Co.,
1913, 12 R. G. 407.
Improvemeiit of highway approaches.
29. Railroad ordered to improve approaches to crossings: Rose v.
Roddis Lhr. Sc Veneer Co., 1907, 1 R. G. 307; Cunningham et al. v. C. M. Sc
St. P. R. Co., 1911, 8 R. G. 513; In re C. St. P. M. Sc 0. R. Crossing near
Columbia Sta., 1912, 8 R. G. 516; In re Crossing near Calvert on C. B. Sc
Q. R. et al., 1912, 8 R. G. 522; In re C. M. & St. P. R. Crossing near Camp
Douglas, 1912, 9 R. G. 328; In re C. Sc N. W. R. Crossing near Dodgeville,
1912, 9 R. G. 520; In re Crossing near Schleisingerville, 1912, 9 R. G. 528;
Town of Wauzeka v. C. M. Sc St. P. R. Co., 1912, 10 R. G. 426; Town of
Wayne v. M. St. P. S: S. S. M. R. Co., 1912, 10 R. G. 493; Town of Hewitt
v. C. St. P. M. cfc 0. R. Co., 1912, 11 R. G. 79; City of Milwaukee v. C. M.
Sc St. P. R. Co. et al., 1913, 11 R. G. 350; 353; Town of Lucas v. C. St. P.
M. Sc 0. R. Co., 1913, 11 R. G. 592; Town of Polk v. M. St. P. cfc S. S. M.
R. Co., 1913, 11 R. G. 589; Town of Milwaukee v. C. Sc N. W. R. Co.,
1913, 11 R. G. 615; Town of Farmington v. M. St. P. Sc S. S. M. R. Co.,
1913, 11 R. G. 624; Village of Elk Mound v. C. St. P. M. Sc 0. R. Co.,
1913, 11 R, G. 654; Town of Beaver Dam v. C. M. Sc St. P. R. Co., 1913,
11 R. G. 662; Town of St. Joseph v. C. St. P. M. Sc 0. R. Co., 1913, 11 R. G.
737; City of Marshfield v. C. Sc N. W. R. Co. et al., 1913, 12 R. G. 59;
Town of Fond du Lac v. C. Sc N. W. R. Co., 1913, 12 R. G. 123; Town of
Lyndon v. C. M. Sc St. P. R. Co., 1913, 12 R. G. 251; Town of Howard v.
224 Railroads. — Construction,^ maintenance and equipment
M. St. P. & S. S. M. R. Co., 1913, 12 R. C. 254; Village of Cambria et al.
V. C. M. Sc St. P. R. Co., 1913, 12 R. C. 501; Village of Unity v. M. St. P.
& S: S. M. R. Co., 1913, 13 R. C. 430; Town of Madison v. I. C. R. Co.,
1914, 13 R. C. 608; City of Monroe v. I. C. R. Co., 1914, 14 R. G. 118;
In re Hanchett Crossing in Town of Blooming Grove, 1914, 14 R. G. 45;
City of Monroe v. C. M. & St. P. R. Co., 1914, 14 R. G. 176; In re Crossing
on C. & N. W. R. in Town of Gale, 1914, 14 R. G. 445; Town of Menomonee
V. C. Sc N. W. R. Co., 1914, 14 R. G. 549; Dent et al. v. C. M. & St. P. R.
Co., 1914, 15 R. G. 203; Town of Marshfield v. M. St. P. Sc S. S. M. R. Co.,
1914, 15 R. G. 207.
b. CROSSINGS — RAILROAD BY HIGHWAY. — Continued.
Protection of — Limitation of car storage area.
30. Railroad ordered to limit car storage area for protection of
crossing: City of Grand Rapids v. G. B. <fc W. R. Co. et al., 1913, 13 R. G.
395.
Limitation of speed of trains.
31. Railroad ordered to limit speed of trains while passing over
crossing: Evarts et al. v. C. M. <Sc St. P. R. Co., 1907, 1 R. G. 712; City of
Boscobel V. C. M. <Sc St. P. R. Co., 1912, 10 R. G. 423; Village of Elk Mound
V. C. St. P. M. & 0. R. Co., 1913, 11 R. G. 654; City of Grand Rapids v.
G. B. Sc W. R. Co. et al., 1913, 13 R. G. 395.
Removal of obstructions to view.
32. Obstructions to view of crossing and trains ordered removed:
In re Richfield Crossing Accident on C. M^Sc St. P. R., 1911, 8 R. G. 287;
In re So. Commercial St. Crossing at Neenah, 1912, 8 R. G, 463; In re C.
M. Sc St. P. Crossing near New Lisbon, 1912, 8 R. G. 511 ; Town of Pewaukee
V. C. M. & St. P. R. Co., 1913, 11 R. G. 658; Town of Friendship v. C. <Sc
N. W. R. Co., 1913, 11 R. G. 733; Town of Fredonia v. C. M. & St. P. R. Co.,
1913, 12 R. G. 516; Town of Madison v. I. C. R. Co., 1914, 13 R. G. 608;
Village of M err Ulan v. C. St. P. M. & 0. R. Co., 1914, 14 R. G. 315; In re
Crossing on C. cfc N. W. R. in Town of Gale, 1914, 14 R. G. 445; In re
Hanchett Crossing in Town of Blooming Grove, 1914, 15 R. G. 45; Town of
Marshfield v. M. St. P. & S. S. M. R. Co., 1914, 15 R. G. 207; Town of
Richmond v. W. & N. R. Co., 1914, 15 R. G. 309; Town of Amherst v.
M. St. P. & S. S. M. R. Co., 1914, 15 R. G. 494; Town of Fairchild v.
C. St. P. M. & 0. R. Co., 1915, 15 R. G. 755.
Signboard.
33. Petitioner alleged that no sign board was maintained at the
crossing. A sign board containing the inscription "look out for the
cars" has been erected since the complaint was made so the requirement
of sec. 1809, Stat, of 1898, has been comphed with in this regard. Rose v.
Roddis Lbr. <Sc Veneer Co., 1907, 1 R. G. 307.
Stopping of trains.
34. Railroad ordered to stop trains at crossing: In re Invest.
Crossing near Calvert on C. B. & Q. R. et al., 1912, 11 R. G. 159; In re
Railroads. — Construction, maintenance and equipment 225
C. M. Sc St. P. Crossing in Eau Claire, 1914, 13 R. C. 628; City of Monroe
V. I. C. R. Co., 1914, 14 R. G. 118.
When necessary.
35. In determining whether a crossing is dangerous to pubUc travel,
the important considerations are the physical surroundings, such as the
obstructions to vision, the grade of highway, the angle of crossing,
auditory conditions, etc., and the frequency and speed of train movements
over the crossing. If, upon an examination of these conditions, the cross-
ing is found to be dangerous, protection should be afforded even though
the highway traffic is very small. The element of highway traffic becomes
important only as a guide to the nature of the protection necessary.
Town of Wilton u. C. & N. W. R. Co., 1913, 11 R. C. 598, 602.
36. If the life of one person is necessarily jeopardized by a highway
crossing, that crossing is "unsafe and dangerous to human life" and
should be protected. Town of Wilton v. C. & N. W. R. Co., 1913, 11
R. C. 598, 603.
37. The protection of a crossing which is rendered dangerous by the
physical surroundings should not be delayed because of the fact that no
serious accidents have occurred there. Town of New Berlin v. C. cfc N.
W. R. Co. et al, 1913, 12 R. G. 358, 361.
38. When no legal highway crossing exists at a designated point, a
railroad company is not, under the statutes, under any obligation to
provide cattle guards or other crossing facilities for its protection. Town
of Richfield v. M. St. P. & S. S. M. R. Co., 1914, 13 R. G. 623, 624.
Relocation of crossing.
39. The legislature of 1913 (ch. 603, laws 1913) empowered the
Gommission to order the closing of a grade crossing and the substitution
of another therefor at grade, if found necessary in the interest of public
safety. In re Barron's Crossing in the Town of Almena, 1914, 14 R. G.
128, 129.
40. The M. St. P. & S. S. M. R. Go. is ordered to change the location
of the crossing in the manner specified by the Gommission, to pay the
town board of the town of Osceola $300 and furnish 100 cubic yards of
gravel, if required. The town board is ordered to legally close and
abandon part of the present highway, to furnish the right of way, and to
do the grading for the new highway in accordance with the Gommission's
specification. In re M. St. P. Sc S. S. M. R. Crossing near Dresser Jet.,
1912, 9 R. G. 339, 341.
41. Each of the two crossings under consideration is dangerous.
The interests of all will be best subserved by relocating the highway.
The M. St. P. & S. S. M. R. Go. is therefore ordered to construct, and
maintain for a period of three years, a suitable highway connecting the
Rochester road and Front street, to acquire the land necessary therefor,
and to enlarge the subway on Front street, plans to be submitted. The
portion of the Rochester road lying within the railway right of way is to be
closed. In re Crossings near Mukwonago, 1913, 13 R. G. 32.
42. Public safety requires the relocation of the highway. The com-
pany is therefore ordered: (1) to construct and maintain for a period of
226 Railroads. — Construction, maintenance and equipment
three years a highway, as specified, connecting the crossings; (2) to provide
suitable private crossings at these points for the use of owners of property
south of the railroad; and (3) to close the present crossings to public
travel. In re C. B. <& Q. R. Crossings near Cassville, 1913, 13 R. C. 86.
43. The relocation of the highway is necessary for public safety.
It is ordered: (1) that the railway company construct, as specified, a new-
crossing and a new highway connecting this crossing with the existing
highway. The town of Almena, upon the completion of the work shall
pay to the railway company the actual cost of the land acquired for
relocating the highway, all other costs to be borne by the railway company.
In re Barron's Crossing in the Town of Almena, 1914, 14 R. C. 128.
44. Respondent is ordered to construct a new crossing at grade
about 470 feet northwest of the second Schulenberg crossing and relocate
the highway as specified. In re C. M. Sc St. P. Crossings in Cross Plains
1914, 14 R. C. 343.
b. CROSSINGS — RAILROAD BY HIGHWAY.— Continued.
Restoration and maintenance of highway.
45. The facts presented show that the highway crossing involved
was not restored to its former state of usefulness within the meaning of
sec. 1836, Statutes of 1898, and the respondent railway company should
proceed to place said crossing and the approaches thereto in a proper
state of repair. Rose v. Roddis Lbr. & Veneer Co., 1907, 1 R. G. 307.
46. The bridges in question form a part of the approaches to the cross-
ings over the railroad tracks and it is the duty of the respondent to
maintain such bridges so that the same will be safe and convenient for
pubUc travel. Town of Rhine v. C. M. & St. P. R. Co., 1910, 5 R. G. 184.
47. The respondent is ordered to construct and maintain a bridge
in accordance with the plans and specifications submitted. Town of
Wauwatosa v. C. & N. W. R. Co., 1911, 7 R. G. 709.
48. Respondent is ordered to construct the bridge in such a manner
that it may be safe and convenient for public travel. Town of Mineral
Pf. V. C. M. & St. P. R. Co., 1912, 8 R. G. 693.
49. The bridge should be reset so as to place the entire structure
on the grade ascending toward the west. The floor should be redesigned
and the clearance above the rail reduced. The grade on the bridge is not
to exceed 6 per cent and the approaches are not to exceed a grade of 6.85
per cent. The roadway is to be widened to not less than 32 feet, and is
to be protected where necessary as specified by the Gommission. Town
of Wauwatosa v. C. & N. W. R. Co., 1912, 9 R. G. 262.
50. The crossing should be restored. Respondent is ordered to
reopen the crossing and place it in proper condition for public use.
Sireeter et al. v. C. St. P. M. & 0. R. Co., 1912, 10 R. G. 531, 533.
51. In the absence of any application under sec. 1797-12e for establish-
ing the manner of the crossing by a railway company which has con-
structed its line over a highway, it is the duty of the company, under sec.
1836, to restore the highway to its former state or to such condition
that it may be conveniently used by the public and to maintain the
highway in this condition. Town of Lucas v. C. St. P. M. & 0. R. Co.,
1913, 12 R. G. 703.
Railroads. — Construction, main tenance and equipment 227
Separation of grades — Overhead bridge.
52, Separation of grades by means of overhead highway bridge
ordered: Town of Wauwatosa v. C. & N. W. R. Co., 1911, 7 R. C. 457;
In re Mills St. Ry. Crossing at La Crosse, 1911, 8 R. G. 422; Town of
Wauwatosa v. C. Sc N. W. R. Co., 1912, 9 R. G. 267; In re Appl. W. cfc
N. R. Co. for Approval of Plans, 1912, 9 R. G. 322; Town Board of Beaver
Dam V. M. S. & N. W. R. Co., 1912, 9 R. G. 471; In re Fernhaber Crossing
East of Schleisingerville, 1912, 11 R. G. 86; Town of Madison v. C. M. &
St. P. R. Co., 1913, 12 R. G. 395; Town of Maple Grove v. M. St. P. &
S. S. M. R. Co., 1913, 12 R. G. 686; Town of Mt. Pleasant v. I. C. R. Co.
et al., 1913, 12 R. G. 749.
Subway.
53. Separation of grades by means of subway ordered: Campbell v.
C. & N. W. R. Co., 1907, 2 R. G. 70; Town of Hubbard v. C. M. & St. P.
R. Co., 1910, 6 R. G. 128; 1911, 6 R. G. 672; City of West Allis v. C. Sc
N. W. R. Co., 1911, 7 R. G. 493; Town of Wauwatosa v. C. d: N. W. R. Co.,
1911, 7 R. G. 737; City of Milwaukee v. C. M. & St. P. R. Co. et al.,
1912, 9 R. G. 193; Town of Greenfield v. C. & N. W. R. Co., 1912, 9 R. G.
270; In re Invest. Crossing of C. & N. W. R. Co., 1912, 10 R. G. 618;
City of Racine v. C. & N. W. R. Co., 1913, 11 R. G. 740; Town of Wilton
V. C. & N. W., R. Co., 1914, 14 R. G. 334; In re Crossing on C. <Sc N. W. R.
North of Racine, 1914, 14 R. G. 454; City of Racine v. C. & N. W. R. Co.,
1914, 14 R. G. 783; In re Crossings on C. St. P. M. Sc 0. R. in Eau Claire,
1914. 15 R. G. 24.
Tra.ck depression and elevation.
54. Railroad ordered to depress certain tracks and elevate other
portions. In re Grade' Sep. on C. M. Sz St. P. R. in Milwaukee, 1915,
15 R. G. 762.
Viaduct.
55. Viaduct ordered constructed for separation of grades: City of
Superior v. N. P. R. Co. et al, 1911, 6 R. G. 674; In re Mills Street Ry.
Crossing at La Crosse, 1913, 13 R. G. 145.
c. CROSSINGS — RAILROAD BY RAILROAD.
Determination as to manner of construction.
56. Application for an order approving the condensed specification
for the construction of applicant's proposed line of railroad, and authorizing
the construction thereof in accordance therewith, and also determining
the manner of certain proposed crossings of the tracks of other railway
companies. Held: That such specification complies with all the require-
ments of the statute and demands of the Gommission, and that the pro-
posed construction will be adequate for securing and protecting the public
safety in the operation of said proposed line of railroad. In re Appl.
W.iSc.N. M. R. Co., 1908, 2 R. G. 362.
228 Railroads. — Construction, maintenance and equipment
c. CROSSINGS — RAILROAD BY RAILROAD. — Continued.
Mode and manner of crossing — Determination of.
57. The manner of the construction of all crossings of steam railroads
by steam railroads, and all crossings of electric or street surface railroads
by like railroads or by steam railroads, is determined by the Commission,
excepting when such crossings are at points within the limits of incorpo-
rated cities. Wis. Stat. sec. 1797-56. Lang et al. v. City of La Crosse et al.,
1909, 3 R. C. 292, 296.
Protection of crossing — Derailing system interlocking plants;
signal system.
58. Installation of derailing systems, interlocking plants and signal
systems ordered: In re Appl. W. Sz N. M. R. Co., 1908, 2 R. C. 362;
In re Appl. M. St. P. & S. S. M. R. Co., 1908, 2 R. G. 386.
d. CULVERTS.
Reconstruction of culverts.
59. Sec. 13886 of the statutes (being ch. 159, laws of 1913) makes the
provision, construction and maintenance of sufTicient ditches, culverts or
other outlets under such circumstances as the present mandatory.
Respondent is ordered to reconstruct its culverts number 357 and 357^
near Snell's station in the manner specified in the order. Williams v.
C. & N. W. R. Co., 1914, 15 R. G. 366.
e. INTERLOCKING PLANTS.
Rules established by the Commission for construction and main-
tenance. *
60. The Commission, under the authority conferred by sec. 1797-96
of the Railroad Commission Law, has decided to establish rules for the
construction, maintenance and operation of interlocking plants on rail-
roads and street railways. The rules are to become effective December 1,
1913, and the management of all railroads and street railways are ordered
to conform to them. In re Interlocking Plants, 1913, 12 R. C. 718.
f. LOCOMOTIVE HEADLIGHTS.
Merits of lights in connection with statutory requirements.
61. None of the oil headlights fulfill the requirements of the law.
The acetylene headlights tested show that the one equipped with the
18-inch reflector and with the cluster of three burners each having a
capacity of one-half cubic foot per hour fulfills the requirements of the
law, provided the reflector is kept well polished and in good condition.
The electric arc headlights tested fulfill the requirements of the law, but
certain prescribed restrictions should be recognized in their use. There
are probably other power headlights than those presented for investiga-
tion that have sufficient illuminating capacity to comply with the law.
In re Invest. Locomotive Headlights, 1912, 11 R. C. 137.
Railroads. — Operation 229
g. TELL TALES.
Rules relating to erection and maintenance.
62. The adoption of formal rules to govern the installation of tell
tales or warning signals, wherever bridges, tunnels or other obstructions
over railroad tracks may be a menace to the safety of trainmen, is made
necessary by the provisions of chapter 348, laws of 1905. As elsewhere
explained, final action on these rules has been withheld pending the ad-
justment of certain doubtful questions of practice, particularly with refer-
ence to the limiting height of the overhead obstruction requiring the in-
stallation of tell tales. In re Rules for Tell Tales, 1908, 2. R. G. 757.'
II. CONTROL AND REGULATION.
a. IN GENERAL.
Determination as to necessity for railroad, see Gertificate of Public
GONVENIENGE AND NECESSITY, 3.
Extent of control — Details of operation left to company,
63. It is only when there is a disregard of public accommodation or
convenience or a conflict between private interest and public duty, or a
violation of any obligation to the public whereby the latter suffers or is
likely to suffer a wrong because of the inadequacy of the facilities fur-
nished or services rendered, or discriminations practiced, or excessive
charges exacted, that interference by the state for the purposes of regula-
tion is justified. Peoples Tel. Co. v. E. R. Co. of M. et al, 1908, 2 R. G.
822, 841.
64. The Commission is always reluctant to interfere in details of
operation, unless absolutely necessary, and they are here left to the rail-
road management. Webster v. C. & N. W. R. Co., 1912, 10 R. G. 500, 508.
Public nature of railroad.
65. That a railroad is not private property in the sense that the
owner may do with it what he lists, we think is as well settled as anything
can be by the decisions of the courts. ^ It was settled in our own court, in
Whining v. S. dc F. R. Co., 25 Wis. 167, and in Attorney-General v. Railway
Companies, 35 Wis. 425. In Munn v. Illinois, 94 U. S. 113, 126, the United
States supreme court held that when private property is affected with a
public interest it ceases to be Juris privati only, and that property becomes
clothed with a public interest when used in such manner as to make it of
public consequence and affect the community at large. Manitowoc
Malting Co. v. W. C. R. Co. et al., 1906, 1 R. G. 69, 77.
III. OPERATION.
a. FILING OF RATES.
Duty of shipper to ascertain lawful rate.
66. Rates are legally effective only when filed and published in the
manner prescribed by the statute. It is incumbent upon every shipper
to ascertain the lawful rate that may be exacted for any proposed trans-
230 Railroads. — Operation
portation of goods before billing the same. If he neglects to do so, or is
willing to accept the quotation of an agent of the railway company, he
acts at his peril. (Poor Grain Co. v. C. B. Sc Q. R. Co., 12 I. G. G. R. 423.)
Beaver Dam Lbr. Co. v. C. St. P. M. & 0. R. Co., 1908, 2 R. G. 700, 701.
a. FILING OF RATES. — Continued.
Duty of shipper to ascertain that rate is filed before making ship-
ment.
67. Whenever the schedule rate in effect is prohibitive of or inappli-
cable to the transportation of any commodity, it is incumbent upon ship-
pers to see in advance of shipments of such commodity that a proper rate
is made effective unless perchance the exigency of the situation will not
admit of delay or the railway company will not accede to the demand for
a different rate than the one prescribed by its schedule. Menasha Wooden-
ware Co. V. W. C. R. Co., 1908, 2 R. G. 589, 591.
b. REQUIREMENTS AS TO SERVICE AND FACILITIES.
See also Station Facilities; Switch Gonnections; Train Service;
Warehouses.
In general.
68. So long as the facilities provided by a railroad company are rea-
sonably adequate and efTicient for the purpose intended, the kind or
character of the same which it may adopt is purely a matter of its own
volition. It is only when the safety of operating trains or the interest or
convenience of the public in the matter of transportation is involved in
the facilities provided, that the right of selection of such facilities becomes
a matter of public concern and may, in such instance, be controlled by
legislation. Sauk City Business Men's Assn. v. C. M. Sc St. P. R. Co.y
1909, 3 R. G. 346, 348-349.
69. It is well understood that ch. 362, laws of 1905, and acts amend-
atory thereto, requires railway companies to provide reasonably adequate
service. Burlington, Brighton Sc Wheatland Tel. Co. v. C. & N. W. R. Co.,
1910, 4 R. G. 388, 392; Eden Ind. Lime Sc Stone Co. v. C. Sc N. W. R. Co.,
1910, 4 R. G. 788, 795.
70. Mere inconvenience does not establish unreasonable inadequacy
of service, nor does the amount of business transacted at a station furni^
the decisive factor. Homstad et al. v. C. M. Sc St. P. R. Co., 1910, 6 R. G.
1, 4.
71. Generally, railroad facilities must be furnished wherever they are
reasonably required for the convenience of the public. Dwight Equity
Produce Co. v. M. St. P. Sc S. S. M. R. Co., 1911, 6 R. G. 501, 502.
72. The duty of furnishing reasonably adequate facilities has not
been left by the statute in every instance to the general terms employed
in sec. 1797-3, which is merely declaratory of the common law. Thus we
find enumerated in the statute many of the specific facilities that a rail-
way company must provide, to-wit, passenger and freight depots, swi-tches
and sidetracks (sec. 1797-9), suitable cars (sec. 1797-10), industrial tracks
(sec. 1797-1 Im), etc. This enumeration of facilities was doubtless due to
the conflict of authorities as to the absolute duty of a railroad company to
. Railroads. — Opera Hon 231
furnish and maintain certain of such faciHties in the absence of any legis-
lation specifically imposing such duty, (2 Elliott on Railroads, sec. 637,
1st Ed.) City of Merrill v. Merrill Ry. Sc LI. Co., 1910, 5 R. G. 418, 424.
73. The cost of service, however, is not the only consideration in
determining the quantum of service a railway company is in duty bound
to perform, for it may be that, in order to discharge its duties in providing
reasonably adequate service to the public on a branch line, it must do so
at a loss; but such an instance would be an extreme case and could only
arise when the minimum of service reasonably required could not possibly
be rendered except at a cost in excess of the revenue that could
be derived from the traffic to be thus accommodated. Village of Curtiss
u. M. St. P. & S. S. M. R. Co., 1911, 6 R. C. 655, 658.
Abandonment of road or portion thereof. •
74. The Wis. C. R. Go. is a common carrier organized under the
laws of Wisconsin. Its chartered duty is to operate a public highway open
to the use of all who desire to use it for a reasonable compensation. It is
not organized for the purpose of building both public and private high-
ways, nor do we think it has any authority to build a private highway.
We hold that it is the duty of the Wis. G. R. Go. to operate the spur in
question, or cause it to be operated, until such time as changes may be
made as provided in sec. 1832, Statutes of 1898, for the benefit of all per-
sons desiring to carry freight over the same, and who are willing to pay
a reasonable compensation for such service. Rib River Land Co. v.
Upham Mfg. Co. et at., 1907, 1 R. G. 739, 763, 765.
75. The Rib Lake Branch extension has been operated by the W. G.
R. Go. or its agents as a common carrier and public convenience and neces-
sity require its operation. As such common carrier, the respondents can-
not refuse to provide a certain minimum of service. Meyer v. Rib Lake
Lbr. Co. et al., 1909, 4 R. G. 178; 1911, 7 R. G. 401.
76. The line in question was operated as a private logging railroad,
and not as a common carrier. The Gommission is therefore without juris-
diction and the petition is dismissed. Bolger et al. v. C. M. & St. P. R. Co.
et at., 1913, 12 R. G. 223, 234.
77. Since the respondent had taken the proper statutory proceed-
ings under sec. 1832, and had obtained a certificate of public convenience
and necessity it had full authority to contruct the new line and abandon
the line through Albertville. The Gommission is without jurisdiction to
entertain the petition. Hart et al. v. M. St. P. <& S. S. M. R. Co., 1911,
7 R. G. 163.
Car service.
78. It is the duty of a carrier, generally, to furnish a car adapted to
the transportation of a commodity designated, and having such capacity
that the minimum loading provisions will not result in an excessive charge
for the carriage. This is true in the absence of any request on the part
of the shipper for any particular kind or size of car. Loftus-Hubbard Ele-
vator Co. V. W. C. R. Co., 1906, 1 R. G. 91; Albert Trostel & Sons v. W. C.
R. Co., 1908, 2 R. G. 761, 762.
232 Railroads. — Operation
79. It is the duty of shippers to so regulate their shipments that
there is a reasonable and fair relation between the amount of freight that
is forwarded to them and the amount of freight they are equipped to
handle. In re Appl. C. M. & St. P. R. Co., 1911, 8 R. C. 101, 104; Bowers
et al. V. C. M. Sc St. P. R. Co., 1913, 11 R. C. 634, 641.
b. REQUIREMENTS AS TO SERVICE AND FACILITIES. — Continued.
Car service — Distribution of cars.
80. It seems to be well established that in times of a shortage of
cars, the cars allotted to any station should be prorated among the various
shippers at such station upon an equitable basis. All that the law requires
is that the carrier acts justly and fairly in making the distribution of cars.
There is no hard and fast rule by which the matter can be determined.
In each case it must be determined by the information at hand and ac-
cording to the best judgment of the person charged with the duty of
making the distribution. Colfax Produce Co. v. M. St. P. <Sc S. S. M. R.
Co., 1914, 14 R. G. 86, 91.
Refrigerator cars.
81. Refrigerator car service, being a special service and requiring
special equipment and facilities, is of necessity a limited service. The
carrier may make reasonable regulations as to the time when the same
may be granted and also restrict the service to such lines and between
such termini as the traffic conditions warrant. Unless there is sufficient
traffic of the kind upon any line requiring the service to pay the expense
thereof when rates are assessed which are not prohibitive, the carrier
could probably be justified in refusing to install the service. Each case
must be determined upon all the facts and circumstances surrounding it.
Ellman v. I. C. R. Co., 1912, 9 R. G. 240, 248.
Construction and maintenance of grain elevator.
82. While an elevator at the point in question is a desirable facility
for a railway company to have, and while if the railway company in ques-
tion had furnished such a facility for the use and benefit of the public it
would be obliged to continue the service, it is not under any legal obliga-
tion to engage in the elevator business as an original proposition. Supe-
rior Board of Trade v. N. P. R. Co., 1907, 1 R. G. 658, 659.
•
Existing elevator or warehouse facilities.
83. While it is not the absolute legal duty of a common carrier to
provide elevator facilities at terminals, it is highly advantageous to the
public and to the carrier that such facilities be furnished and when they
are placed at the disposal of the public and are used by it for a series of
years so that commercial conditions and interests have grown up under
such methods of doing business, such elevators become an integral part of
the equipment of the carrier, which the public at large has the right to
use. Superior Board of Trade v. G. N. R. Co. et al., 1907, 1 R. G. 619, 655.
Express facilities.
84. So long as the public are served to their reasonable satisfaction,
it is a matter of no importance who serves them. The railroad company
Railroads. — Operation 233
performs its whole duty to the public at large and to each individual
when it affords the public all reasonable express accommodations. If
this is done, the railroad company owes no duty to the public as to the
particular agencies it shall select for that purpose. The public requires
the carriage, but the company may choose its own appropriate means of
carriage, always provided they are such as to insure reasonable promptness
and security. (Express Cases.. 1886, 117 U. S. 24.) Sauk City Business
Men's Assn. v. C. M. & St. P. R. Co., 1909, 3 R. G. 346, 349.
Operation at a pecuniary loss.
85. We believe that every railway compan\'^ owes certain duties to the
public by virtue of its character as a common carrier. It is immaterial
whether the performance of these duties in themselves yields remuner-
ative returns or not. A certain minimum of service must be performed
whether the revenues derived therefrom are sufficient to pay operating
expenses, fixed charges and dividends or not. This minimum of service
must be judged by the necessities of the patrons of the line and the con-
ditions under which that line is operated. Leonard et at. v. W. C. R. Co.,
1907, 1 R. C. 724, 730.
86. It is not necessary that each particular service performed by a
public carrier should yield as high a rate of return as the carrier can
consistently and lawfully demand for its business as a whole. A public
carrier owes certain duties to the public, and, within reasonable limits,
it must perform these duties whether it pays or not. Dennis v. K. G. B.
& W. R. Co., 1908, 3 R. C. 115, 116; Meyer v. Rib Lake Lbr. Co. et al,
1909, 4 R. C. 178, 187.
87. The court will not make a useless or futile order. It will not do a
vain thing. An order to compel an insolvent railroad company having
abandoned the use of its road, to resume operation, should only be issued
in the interest of the public. If the track is replaced, there is no reason-
able probability that the road will be or can be operated. If a railway
will not pay its mere operating expenses, the public has little interest in
the operation of thfe road or in its being kept in repair. (Kansas v.
Dodge City, M. & T. R. Co., 1894, 53 Kan. 329, 336.) Brown v. Janesville
Street R. Co., 1910, 4 R. G. 757, 763-764.
88. The mere fact that a train might not be remunerative during a
certain season of the year would not be a justification for not furnishing
it if the convenience of the public, under the circumstances, reasonably
required it. Seymour Business Men's Assn. v. G. B. So W. R. Co., 1912,
8 R. C. 524, 527.
89. Every part of a railroad system cannot be expected to be profit-
able and a railway company is generally in duty bound to furnish Reason-
ably adequate service regardless of cost, it, of course, follows strongly
that under certain circumstances, on a branch whose business has in-
creased, the adequate service to the public may make it necessary for a
railroad to operate a train which is not particularly profitable or even
entails some loss. Webster v. C. & N. W. R. Co., 1912, 10 R. G. 500, 508.
90. There is a certain minimum service to which every community
served by a common carrier is entitled, quite independent of the financial
results. Hemmis et al. v. G. B. Sz W. R. Co., 1912, 10 R. G. 626, 628-629.
- /
234 Railroads. — Operation '_
h. REQUIREMENTS AS TO SERVICE AND FACILITIES. — Continued.
Operation of Sunday train.
91. In the absence of a specific statute on the subject, the question
as to Sunday train service must be determined with reference to the
general penal statute prohibiting the performance of any business, work,
or labor, "except only works of necessity and charity," on Sundays.
(Wis. Stat, of 1898, sec. 4595.) The supreme court of this state has
laid down the rule that a railway company is under no obligation to carry
passengers on Sundays because of the inhibition of the statute (sec. 4595)
(Walsh v. C. M. & SL P. R. ,Co., 1877, 42 Wis. 23). Whatever may be
our views as to the soundness or wisdom of the policy thus declared, it
is controlling in effect in the case before us. Until the legislature ex-
pressly excepts railroad companies from the operation of such statute,
or the supreme court recedes from its former position, the Commission
is powerless to compel the running of railway trains on Sundays for the
convenience of the public. Seymour Business Men's Assn. v. G. B. <Sc W.
R. Co., 1912, 8 R. C. 524, 527-531.
Special equipment.
92. Wherever the territory served by the railroad produces com-
modities in sufficient quantities which require special equipment for their
proper shipment, such equipment should be provided. (1, Wyman,
Public Service Corporations, sec. 796.) Ellman v. I. C. R. Co., 1912,
9 R. C. 240, 247.
Switching service.
93. It is competent for a state to compel intersecting railway com-
panies to make track connections and to interchange traffic (Wis. M. cfc
P. R. Co. V. Jacobson, 179, U. S. 287), and under the provisions of sec.
1797-11 (ch. 362, laws of 1905) as that section is amended, it was the
duty of the respondent to receive the car in question and switch and
deliver the same on its team track, it being entitled to receive a reasonable
compensation for the service requested. Clark v. C. M. & St. P. R. Co.,
1907, 1 R. C. 590, 593, 595.
94. The service of switching between different parts of the same plant
is a service which the railroad may do in the regular conduct of its business,
and is similar to thai rendered elsewhere in many cities and villages on the
system as switching service and at a switching rate. If the canning
company is willing to pay a fair rate for service, the railroad company
must furnish that service. Columbus Canning Co. v. C. M. & St. P. R. Co.,
1913, 12 R. C. 137, 138.
Telegraph service.
95. It appears to be unquestioned that legally the telegraph companies
and not the railway companies are responsible for the commercial tele-
graph business in the state of Wisconsin, In re Invest, of Telegraph
Service, 1908, 2 R. C. 263, 268-269.
Telegraph and telephone service.
96. The railway company cannot be compelled to furnish either
telephone or telegraph service for the convenience of the public in the
Railroads. — Operation 235
transaction of business not concerning the transportation of persons or
property or any service in connection therewith. The transmission of
commercial messages is not usually within the scope of the corporate
powers of a common carrier of freight and passengers, and the railway in
the present case has no franchise authorizing it to engage in the business
of a common carrier of messages. Sauk City Business Men's Assn. v.
C. M. <^ Si. P. R. Co., 1909, 3 R. C. 346, 348.
Telephone facilities.
97. The duty of furnishing the public with adequate telephonic
service for the purpose of transacting business with the railroad has been
self-imposed, in many instances, by reason of usage and necessity. It has,
therefore, become a necessary facility in such cases for the proper dis-
charge of the transportation business of the railway company, within
the rule of the common law as well as in contemplation of the express
legislative enactments. While a carrier may select the agencies by which
to serve the public, it may not select an agency exclusively which for any
reason is incapable of fully discharging the duty of the carrier to the
public. People's Tel. Co. v. E. R. Co. of M. et al., 1908, 2 R. C. 822, 843.
98. The extent to which the statutory requirement of reasonably
adequate service compels the furnishing of telephone service by railway
companies, is a question which admits of no general answer applicable
to all stations. Burlington, Brighton & Wheatland Tel. Co. v. C. Sc N.
W. R. Co., 1910, 4 R. G. 388, 392.
Terminal facilities.
99. It is the duty of common carriers to provide adequate terminal
facilities in the way of team tracks or warehouses and to permit the public
to load and unload freight from these tracks and warehouses without unjust
preference or discrimination. It is also the duty of common carriers,
•where conditions require it, to permit connection between their tracks
and private industrial tracks leading into industrial plants. This is a
requirement without which the interests of the public could not be ade-
quately subserved by these carriers. Plowright & Menzies v. C. & N..
W. R. Co., 1908, 2 R. C. 553, 569-570.
c. RIGHTS OF COMMON CARRIERS.
Collection on delivery.
100. Common carriers undoubtedly have the right to collect on
delivery, and also to require that the payment be made at their offices.
These rights, however, are not always enforced. Under modern methods
of doing business credit plays so important a part that few can get on
without it. It is common in all lines of business, including that of
transportation. It is not only a convenience, but it tends to promote
economies in as well as expansions of the business. In view of its im-
portance it is conceivable that carriers may so use or. apply their credit
among their patrons as to favor some much more than others. Plowright
& Menzies v. C. & N. W. R. Co., 1908, 2 R. C. 553, 565.
236 . Railroads. — Operation
c. RIGHTS OF COMMON CARRIERS. — Continued.
Designation of purpose for which their tracks shall be used.
101. Generally speaking, common carriers have the right to designate
the purpose for which their tracks shall be used. That is, they may
determine what tracks shall be used for team tracks, what tracks shall be
used for switching tracks, and so on. The public may demand facilities
that are reasonably adequate, and it is also entitled to such facilities;
but this does not mean that each particular shipper can pick out that
particular track or part of the track for his own use which suits him the
best. The railroads are operated for the public as a whole, for all the
shippers rather than for a part of the shippers. But their management is
entrusted to their officers and should not be interfered with except whei^
some provision in the law is violated or when it is necessary to do so in
the interests of public policy. Plowright <Sc Menzies v. C. Sc N. W. R. Co.,
1908, 2 R. C. 553, 571.
d. SHIPPING DIRECTIONS.
Responsibility of carrier.
102. It would be imposing an improper burden upon the railway
company, and one which, perhaps, could not be lawfully imposed under
the given circumstances, to require it to assume responsibility for securing
shipping directions for a car which is, as a matter of fact, offered for
transportation to another company, and regarding which it can have
no knowledge except what may be contained in a receipt signed through
error by its agent at the instance of a shipper's agent who is acting in
error. Milwaukee Western Malt Co. v. C. M. & St. P. R. Co. et a/., 1910,
5 R. C. 437, 439-440.
e. SPEED OF TRAINS.
Regulation of speed within a municipality.
103. It appears to us that the matter of violation of ch. 595 need not
be discussed for the reason that the local authorities have the full remedy
within their own hands to regulate the speed of trains within the village.
Every railway company should be expected to comply strictly with the
law, but if it does not do so, there is sufficient police authority vested in
the local officials to put a prompt stop to such violations. Tate v. C. B.
6 Q. R. Co., 1908, 2 R. G. 348, 349-350.
RATES.
See Rates — Railroad.
IV. RIGHT OF WAY AND OTHER INTERESTS IN LAND.
Condemnation of right of way, exercise of delegated power of eminent
domain, see Eminent Domain, 3.
Site for warehouse on railroad's right of way within yard limits of station
or terminal, see Warehouses, 2.
Rate Wars 237
Rights in and use of highways and public places.
103. While the streets cannot be permanently used for private pur-
poses or for the construction of railroads for private purposes, they may
be used for the construction of a spur track leading to an industry; such
tracks are of a public character and designed to serve all persons without
discrimination. Under the statute railroads have the right to construct
their tracks across or upon the highways of any city or village, subject
only to the right of cities to exercise reasonable regulations respecting the
location and construction of such tracks, and the duty of the railroad com-
panies to so construct them as not to materially impair the usefulness of
the highway; no license or authority is required from the Commission or
the village board to construct the proposed track. Farmers' Store Co. v.
C. St. P. M. & 0. Ry Co., 1908, 3 R. C. 42, 51-53.
104. Spur tracks may not be constructed across or upon any street,
lane or alley within the corporate limits of any city without the consent
of the proper authorities of such city, who may prescribe terms and con-
ditions for the construction of such tracks. Wis. Statutes, sec. 1802 and
sec. 1831a. Lang et at. v. City of La Crosse et aL, 1909, 3 R. C. 292, 296.
105. It was not until ch. 262 of the laws of 1907 was enacted amend-
ing sec. 1831a, that cities were granted the power to pass upon the loca-
tion of such tracks in the public thoroughfares. Prior to such amendment
cities were in the same situation respecting the use of streets by railway
companies for tracks as are towns and villages at the present time. Farm-
ers' Store Co. v. C. Si. P. M. & 0. R. Co., 1908, 3 R. G. 42, 50; Burns v.
La Crosse Gas Sc El. Co. et at., 1911, 6 R. G. 195, 197.
VALUATION.
See Valuation.
RATE OF RETURN.
See Return.
As element considered in making rates for electric utility, see Rates —
Electric, 36.
RATE SCHEDULES.
See Schedules for Utilities; Schedules or Tariffs.
RATE WARS.
Power of Commission to prevent rate wars between competing railroads,
see Railroad Commission, 135.
between competing utilities, see Railroad Commission, 136.
238
Rates-Electric. — Active load
RATES— ELECTRIC.
Deposits to insure payment of bills, see Rules and Regulations, 21-26.
Discounts for prompt payment of bills, see Rules and Regulations,
14-19.
Discrimination in electric rates, see Discrimination, 7-27, 45-46.
Penalties for delinquent payment of bills, see Rules and Regulations,
14-18, 20.
I.
II.
III.
IV.
V.
VI.
VII.
VIII.
IX.
X.
XI.
XII.
XIII.
XIV.
XV.
XVI.
XVII.
XVIII.
XIX.
XX.
XXI.
XXII.
XXIII.
XXIV.
XXV.
XXVI.
XXVII.
XXVIII.
XXIX.
XXX.
\
ACTIVE LOAD.
CHARGE FOR INSTALLING METERS.
COMBINED LIGHT AND POWER SERVICE.
CONTRACTS FOR SERVICE.
COOKING AND HEATING PLANTS.
DEMAND.
DISPLAY OR SIGN LIGHTING.
ELECTRIC FLAT IRONS.
EMERGENCY OR "STANDBY" SERVICE.
FLAT RATES.
INCIDENTAL APPLIANCES.
LAMP RENEWALS.
LIMITED OR "OFF-PEAK" SERVICE.
MAKING RATES— ELEMENTS CONSIDERED.
MAXIMUM RATES.
METER RATES.
METER RENTAL.
MINIMUM CHARGES.
OUTSIDE CONSUMERS.
POWER RATES.
PUMPING RATES.
RATE WARS.
REASONABLENESS OF ADVANCE IN RATES IN PARTIC-
ULAR CASES.
REASONABLENESS OF RATES— MATTERS CONSIDERED
IN DETERMINING REASONABLENESS.
REASONABLENESS OF RATES IN PARTICULAR CASES.
RECONNECTION CHARGES.
SERVICE CHARGES.
SHORT TIME SERVICE.
SPECIAL CONTRACT RATES.
STREET LIGHTING RATES.
I. ACTIVE LOAD.
Determination of method of determining active load prescribed.
1. Lighting.—//? re Appl. Chippewa Val. Lt. &: P. Co., 1908, 2 R. C
311; 768; In re Appl Stoughton Man. EL Lt. Plant, 1909, 3 R. C. 484;
In re Men. & Mar. Lt. cfc Tr. Co., 1909, 3 R. C. 778; In re Appl. Cumber-
land Mun. El. Lt. Plant, 1909, 4 R. C. 214; State Journal Prtg. Co. v. Madi-
son G. <Sc El. Co., 1910, 4 R. C. 501; City of Ripon v. Ripon Lt. cfc W. Co.,
1910, 5 R. C. 1; Cunningham et al. v. Chippewa Falls W. Wks. & Ltg. Co.,
1910, 5 R. C. 302; City of Manitowoc v. Manitowoc El. Lt. Co., 1910, 5 R G.
360; In re Appl. Jefferson Mun. El. Lt. & W. Plant, 1910, 5 R. C. 555; In re
Appl. Bloomer El. Lt. Plant, 1911, 6 R. C. 506; City of Beloit v. Beloit W.
Rates-Eleciric. — Combined light and power service 239
G. & El. Co., 1911, 7 R. C. 187; In re Appl. Chippeum Val. Ry. Lt. & P.
Co., 1912, 9 R. C. 305; City of Rhinelander v. Rhinelander Ltg. Co.
1912, 9 R. C. 406. In re Invest Chippewa Val. Ry. Lt.&P. Co., 1912,
10 R. C. 692; Superior ComnCl. Club et al. v. Superior W. Lt. Sc P. Co.,
1912, 10 R. C. 704; In re Invest. Evansville Mun. El. Lt. <Sc W. Plant, 1912,
11 R. C. 197; In re Appl. Village of Arcadia, 1912, 11 R. C. 216; In re
Appl. Columbus W. & Lt. Comm., 1913, 11 R. C. 449; In re Appl. Ft.
Atkinson W. & Lt. Comm., 1913, 12 R. C. 260; City of Green Bay v. Green
Bay Gas cfc El. Co., 1913, 12 R. C. 324; Douglas et al. v. Equitable El. Lt.
Co., 1913, 12 R. G. 337; In re Invest. Electric Rates in Oconto, 1913, 12 R. C.
584; In re Invest. Chippewa Val. Ry. Lt. & P. Co., 1913, 13 R. C. 19; In re
Appl. Neshkoro Lt. & P. Co., 1913, 13 R. C. 52; In re Madison G. cfc EL
Co., 1913, 13 R. C. 259; In re Appl. Darlington El. Lt. & W. P. Co., 1913,
13 R. C. 344; In re Invest. Chippewa Val. Ry. Lt. cfc P. Co., 1913, 13 R. C.
444; In re Appl. Mt. Horeb Ht. Lt. & P. Co., 1914, 13 R. C. 653; In re
Invest. Mosinee El. Lt. <k P. Co., 1914, 13 R. G. 712; Hood et al. v. Monroe
El. Co., 1914, 14 R. G. 227; In re Stevens Pt. Ltg. Co., 1914. 14 R. G. 350;
Douglas et al. v. Equitable El. Lt. Co., 1914, 14 R. G. 381; Kittleson et al. v.
Elroy Mun. W. & Lt. Plant, 1914, 14 R. G. 485; Jones et al. v. Berlin Public
Service Co., 1914, 15 R. G. 121; In re Appl. Sun Prairie Mun. El. Plant,
1914, 15 R. G. 189; In re Appl. United Ht. Lt. & P. Co., 1914, 15 R. G.
505; In re Invest. Waterloo Mun. W. & El. Plant, 1914, 15 R. G. 534.
, Power.— /n re Appl. Chippewa Val. Ry. Lt. & P. Co., 1908, 2 R. G.
311, 768; In re Appl. Stoughton Mun. El. Lt. Plant, 1909, 3 R. G. 484;
In re Men. & Mar. Lt. & Tr. Co., 1909, 3 R. G. 778; State Journal Prtg.
Co. V. Madison G. & El. Co., =1910, 4 R. G. 501; City of Beloit v. Beloit W. G.
S: El. Co., 1911, 7 R. G. 187; Douglas et al. v. Equitable El. Lt. Co., 1913,
12 R. G. 337; Rosencrans et al. v. Prairie City El. Co., 1913, 12 R. G. 413;
In re Invest. Electric Rates in Oconto, 1913, 12 R. G. 584; In re Appl. Nesh-
koro Lt. (Sc P. Co., 1913, 13 R. G. 52; City of Waukesha v. Waukesha G. &
El. Co., 1913, 13 R. G. 100; In re Appl. Darlington El. Lt. & W. P. Co.,
1913, 13 R. G. 344; Hood et al. v. Monroe El. Co., 1914, 14 R. G. 227; In re
Stevens Pt. Ltg. Co., 1914, 14 R. G. 350; Douglas et al. v. Equitable El. Lt.
Co., 1914, 14 R. G. 381; Jones et al. v. Berlin Public Service Co., 1914, 15
R. G. 121; In re Appl. Sun Prairie Mun. El. Plant, 1914, 15 R. G. 189;
In re Appl. United Ht. Lt. & P. Co., 1914, 15 R. G. 505.
II. GHARGE FOR INSTALLING METERS.
Reasonableness of.
2. To protect the utility from loss through temporary consumers, a
charge was authorized to be made when a temporary consumer discon-
tinued service and less than a certain amount of current had been con-
sumed. In re City of Manitowoc, 1914, 14 R. G. 697.
III. GOMBINED LIGHT AND POWER SERVIGE.
Establishment of rates.
3. Rates for combined lighting and power service established. In re
Invest. Milw. Electric Rates, 1912, 9 R. G. 541; In re Invest. Evansville EL
Lt.Sc W. Plant, 1912, 11 R. G. 197.
240 Rates-Electric. — Contracts for service
IV. CONTRACTS FOR SERVICE.
When lawful.
■
4. Applying the principles laid down by the courts and the text
writers, we have to determine first, whether the contracts under considera-
tion were void from the beginning because the rates named were unreason-
ably low. The Commission does not feel warranted in so finding. In re
AppL Rhinelander Power Co. to Amend its Rates, 1915, 15 R. C. 783, 801.
V. COOKING AND HEATING RATES.
Establishment of.
5. Rates for cooking and heating established. Superior Comm'l.
Ctub et al. v. Superior W. Lt. Sc P. Co., 1912, 10 R. C. 704; In re AppL
Ft. Atkinson W. & Lt. Comm., 1913, 12 R. C. 729; Hood et al. v. Monroe
El. Co., 1914, 14 R. C. 227; Douglas et al. v. Equitable El. Lt. Co., 1914,
14 R. C. 381.
VI. DEMAND.
Determination of.
6. Method of determining electric power demand established. In re
Appl. Bloomer El. Lt. Plant, 1911, 6 R. C. 506; In re Appl. Chippewa Val.
Ry. Lt. <Sc P. Co., 1912, 9 R. C. 305; In re Invest. Milw. Electric Rates, 1912,
9 R. C. 541; In re Appl. Rhinelander P. Co., 1915, 15 R. C. 783.
VII. DISPLAY OR SIGN LIGHTING.
Establishment of rates.
7. Rates for sign or display lighting estabhshed. In re. Invest. Milw.
Electric Rates, 1912, 9 R. C. 541; Superior Comm'l. Club et al. v. Superior
W. Lt. Sc P. Co., 1912, 10 R. C. 704; City of Green Bay v. Green Bay G. &
El. Co., 1913, 12 R. C. 324; In re Invest. Chippewa Val. Ry. Lt. & P. Co.,
1913, 13 R. C. 19; 444; Douglas et al. v. Equitable El. Lt. Co., 1914, 14 R. C.
381.
VIII. ELECTRIC FLATIRONS.
Rates for.
8. In the present case the question was raised as to the rates which a
laundry should pay for current used by electric flatirons. The utiUty
asks permission to establish a flat rate for this class of service. As a gen-
eral proposition it is not advisable to establish flat rates except where
the amount of energy used is so small as not to warrant the additional
investment, or where a fixed installation is burned a certain number of
hours. Of course, in the latter case the amount of energy used can be
easily and definitely computed, hence a meter is not necessary. Coming
back to this particular laundry, it seems that in view of the fact that its
use of current for heating irons is mostly off-peak it should be entitled to
the power rate for this service. In re AppL Columbus W. &. Li. Comm.,
1913, 11 R. C. 449, 472.
Rates-Electric. — Flat rates 241
IX. EMERGENCY OR "STANDBY" SERVICE.
Establishment of rates.
9. Rates for emergency or "standby" service established. Lighting
Service. — In re AppL La Crosse Gas & El. Co., 1911, 8 R. C. 138; In re
Invest. EvansvUle EL Lt. & W. Plant, 1912, 11 R. C. 197. Power Serv-
ice. — In re Appl. La Crosse Gas <fe El. Co., 1911, 8 R. C. 138; In re Invest.
Miliv. Electric Rates, 1912, 9 R. C. 541; In re Invest. Waterloo Mun. W.
A El. Plant, 1914, 15 R. C. 534.
X. FLAT RATES.
Generally unsatisfactory.
10. Flat rates for electric service are unscientific as well as unsatis-
factory in every other respect. Under them it is impossible to adjust the
rates on the basis of the cost of the serxice, which seems to be about the
only sound system of fate making, and they are likely to lead to dissatisfac-
tions and to trouble generally. In re Appl. Fox River Millg. cfc P. Co.,
1907, 2 R. C. 135, 138; In re Appl. Portage El. Lt. Co., 1908, 2 R. C. 258,
260; Dodgeville v. Dodgeville EL Lt. & P. Co., 1908, 2 R. C. 392, 417; In re
AppL Medford Lt. & Htg. Co., 1908, 2 R. C. 421, 424; In re AppL Chetek
Lt. & P. Co., 1908, 2 R. C. 662, 666-667; City of Ripon v. Ripon Li. & W.
Co., 1910, 5 R. C. 1, 34; In re Appl. Durand Lt. & P. Co., 1911, 6 R. C.
334, 348; City of Rhinelander v. Rhinelander Ltg. Co., 1912, 9 R. C. 406,
435; In re Invest. EvansvUle Mun. EL Lt. & W. Plant, 1912, 11 R. C. 197,
206; In re Appl. Columbus W. & Lt. Comm., 1913, 11 R. C. 449, 473; In re
AppL Village of Withee, 1914, 13 R. C. 704, 709.
11. The present flat rate of 50 cts. per lamp per month is equivalent
to a charge of 534 hours' use daily at the above rate. As many of the
flat rate lamps are used in such places as halls, for all night service, the
charge of 50 cts. per lamp per month is not deemed excessive in this case.
Hood et at. v. Monroe EL Co., 1914, 14 R. C. 227, 236.
12. In fixing a schedule of flat rate charges, the rate per watt of load
connected should bear some relation to the amount of service rendered,
but this relation is so difficult to ascertain and classify that the application
of flat rat.es ought to be limited to those cases in which the installation of a
meter is too expensive. There should be also a minimum charge for
unmetered service in order to insure that a reasonable part of the cost of
service be paid by the customer. In re AppL Browntown Mun. Lt.
Plant, 1914, 14 R. C. 560, 565.
13. In case consumers do not abide by the rule of the utility there are
two possible courses to be taken. Service may be discontinued or meters
may be installed. Which of these courses should be pursued must be
dependent upon a variety of conditions. We are inclined to believe that
the better course to pursue in this case would be to use the meter basis of
selUng current. In re AppL Gilmanton Mill & El. Plant, 1914, 14 R. G.
152. 154.
242 Rates-Electric. — Flat rates
For limited service. ,
14. The company has filed with the Commission certain schedules to
apply to patrolled service for display lighting and to residence and business
lighting where the maximum demand is limited by a controlling device.
In these schedules the rates consist of fixed charges based upon the amount
of demand contracted for by the customers. These rates are not in-
consistent with the other schedules which the Commission will order.
Douglas et al. v. Equitable El. Lt. Co., 1914, 14 R. C. 381, 389.
XI. INCIDENTAL APPLIANCES.
Relation to active load.
15. Incidental appliances to be considered in determining the active
lighting load of a consumer. State Journal Prtg. Co. v. Madison G. cfc
El. Co., 1910, 4 R. C. 501; City of Ripon v. Ripon Lt. Sc W. Co., 1910,
5. R. C. 1; Cunningham et al. u. Cliippewa Falls W. Wks. & Ltg. Co.,
1910, 5 R. C. 302; In re Appl. Jefferson Mun. El. Lt. Sc W. Plant, 1910,
5 R. C. 555; City of Beloit v. Beloit W. G. & El Co., 1911, 7 R. C. 187;
City of Rhinelander v. Rhinelander Ltg. Co., 1912, 9 R. C. 406; In re Invest.
Chippewa Val. Ry. Lt. & P. Co., 1912, 10 R. C. 692; Superior Comm'l Club
et al. V. Superior W. Lt. & P. Co., 1912, 10 R. C. 704; In re Appl Ft. Atkin-
son W. & Lt. Comm., 1913, 12 R. C. 260; City of Green Bay v. Green Bay Gas
6 El Co., 1913, 12 R. G. 324; City of Waukesha v. Waukesha G. cfc El Co.,
1913, 13 R. C. 100; In re Madison G. cfc El Co., 1913, 13 R. G. 259.
16. Incidental appliances not to be considered in determining the
active lighting load of a consumer. In re Appl Columbus W. & Lt.
Comm., 1913, 11 R. C. 449; In re Invest. Electric Rates in Oconto, 1913,
12 R. C. 584; In re Appl. Neshkoro Lt. & P. Co., 1913, 13 R. C. 52; In re
Appl. Darlington El Lt. & W. P. Co., 1913, 13 R. C. 344; In re Appl Ml
Horeb Hi Lt. & P. Co., 1914, 13 R. C. 653; In re Invest. Mosinee El Lt.
Sc P. Co., 1914, 13 R. C. 712; Hood et al v. Monroe El Co., 1914, 14 R. C.
227; Douglas et al. v. Equitable El Lt. Co., 1914, 14 R. C. 381; Kittleson
et al V. Elroy Mun. W. & Lt. Plant, 1914, 14 R. C. 485; Jones et al. v.
Berlin Public Service Co., 1914, 15 R. C. 121; In re Appl Sun Prairie
Mun. El Plant, 1914, 15 R. C. 189; In re Appl United III Lt. d: P. Co.,
1914, 15 R. C. 505; In re Invest. Waterloo Mun. W. Sc El Plant, 1914,
15 R. C. 534.
17. Rates for incidental appliances established. In re Appl Chip-
pewa Val Ry. Lt. Sc P. Co., 1908, 2 R. C. 311, 768.
XII. LAMP RENEWALS.
Free renewals.
18. Utility required to furnish free lamp renewals. In re Appl
Men. Sc Mar. Lt. Sc Tr. Co., 1909, 3 R. C. 778; State Journal Prtg. Co. v.
Madison G. Sc El Co., 1910, 4 R. C. 501; Cunningham et al. v. Chippewa
Falls W. Wks. Sc Ltg. Co., 1910, 5 R. C. 302; In re Invest. Milw. Electric
Rates, 19.12, 9 R. C. 541; In re Appl Columbus W. Sc Lt. Comm., 1913,
11 R. C. 449; In re Invest. Electric Rates in Oconto, 1913, 12 R. G. 584;.
In re Madison G. cfc El Co., 1913, 13 R. C. 259.
Rates-Electric. — Making rates — elements considered 243
XIII. LIMITED OR "OFF-PEAK" SERVICE.
Establishment of rates.
19. Rates established for limited or "off-peak" service. In re Invest.
Milw. Electric Rates, 1912, 9 R. C. 541; Hood et al. v. Monroe El Co.,
1914, 14 R. G. 227.
XIV. MAKING RATES— ELEMENTS GONSIDERED.
Comparative data.
20. Comparisons alone sometimes fall short of furnishing all the
information that is necessary in order to determine whether a particular
rate or schedule is just or unjust. Nevertheless, such comparisons are
very important and constitute one of the elements that should receive
due consideration in all rate adjustments. In re Appl. Merrill Ry.
& Ltg. Co., 1907, 2 R. C. 148, 166-167.
Cost of service.
21. The best rates are those that are based upon the cost. Each
customer should, under ordinary conditions, contribute his just proportion
of all the expenses as well as of the interest upon the investment. In re
Appl. La Crosse Gas & El. Co., 1907, 2 R. C. 3, 30; In re Appl. Fox River
Millg. & P. Co., 1907, 2 R. G. 135, 139; In re Appl. Alma El. Lt. Co.,
1907, 2 R. G. 144, 146; In re Appl. Medford Lt. & Htg. Co., 1908, 2 R. C.
421, 424; In re Men. 6c Mar. Lt. <Sc Tr. Co., 1909, 3 R. C. 778, 831; In re
Appl. North Milw. Lt. & P. Co., 1909, 4 R. G. 89, 102; City of Manitowoc
V. Manitowoc El. Lt. Co., 1910, 5 R. C. 360, 370; In re Appl. Jefferson.
Muh. El. Lt. Sc W. Plant, 1910, 5 R. C. 555, 560; City of Watertown v.
Watertown G. & El. Co., 1914, 14 R. G. 604, 606.
Continuous service.
22. Continuous service . which will make lights available even at
times when there is practically no load on the plant undoubtedly tends to
make service more expensive than it would be if supplied only at times of
considerable demand, and we think, that with the exception of the
minimum charge, the lighting schedule may be accepted. In re Appl.
Burkhardt Millg. & El. Co., 1914, 15 R. C. 409, 411.
— : — Cost of additional business.
23. The fixing of rates for certain services on the basis of the cost of
additional business has well defined limitations. It would seem that it
can be justified only in cases where the additional business can be had on no
better terms and where these terms are such as to yield something in the
way of profit and are not unjustly discriminatory. State Journal Prtg.
Co. et al. V. Madison Gas & El. Co., 1910, 4 R. G. 501, 671.
24. To adhere closely to the table of costs is not always advisable.
The reason for distributing the fixed cost over the three steps, in the
present case as well as in many other instances, contrary to the cost
curve, and thus charging the short hour user less than his pro rata share,
is that there are a great many short hour users who cannot be made to
244 Raies-Elecfric. — Making rates — elements considered
contribute the full amount of this share. These consumers are profitable,
however, when they help bear a part at least of the overhead charges,
and, even though they do not carry their full share, thus lighten the load
to the other consumers. In re Appl. Neshkoro Lt. Sz P. Co., 1913, 13
R. C. 52, 63.
25. The Commission has pointed out in many cases the advantages
of a power load. All that need be said here is that off-peak long-hour
power business which, for competitive and other reasons, cannot be had
on better terms, might be accepted at less than the regular rates, provided,
of course, that the yield therefrom leaves something for fixed charges and
provided further, that it can be so taken without unjust discrimination.
For various reasons it is customary everywhere to grant much lower
rates for power than for lighting. In re Appl. Neshkoro Lt. & P. Co.,
1913, 13 R. C. 52, 64.
Cost of service — Deficits arising from failure of a branch of the
service to pay its costs.
26. When one service does not pay its cost, some of the other services
must contribute to make up the loss in the form of higher rates if the utility
as a whole is to receive a fair return on its investment. The question
as to how much of these deficits can be equitably charged to the other
services, such as street lighting and commercial lighting, must be the
issue in this case. City of Waukesha v. Waukesha G. Sc El. Co., 1913,
13 R. C. 100. 125-126. >
Demand factor.
27. The plant must hold itself in readiness to furnish current whenever
it is demanded. As electric current can not be profitably stored, the plant
must not only be in constant operation, but its capacity must be equal to
the greatest demand that is made upon it. These facts, in turn, tend to
materially increase the cost of operation, first because the investment
required is greater than would otherwise be the case, and again, because
the plant cannot be closed down during those periods when little demand
is made for current. In re Appl. Chippewa Val. Ry. Lt. Sc P. Co., 1908,
2 R. C. 311, 319; In re Men. & Mar. Lt. & Tr. Co., 1909, 3 R. C. 778, 825;
In re Appl. Cumberland Mun. El. Lt. Plant, 1909, 4 R. C. 214, 219; State
Journal Prtg. Co. et al. v. Madison Gas & El. Co., 1910, 4 R. C. 501, 662-
663; City of Ripon v. Ripon Lt. cfc W. Co., 1910, 5 R. C. 1, 28, 29; City of
Manitowoc v. Manitowoc El. Lt. Co., 1910, 5 R. C. 360, 383; In re Appl.
Jefferson Mun. El. Lt. & W. Plant, 1910, 5 R. C. 555, 563; City of Beloit
V. Beloit W. G. & El. Co., 1911, 7 R. C. 187, 376; In re Invest. Mosinee EL
Lt. Sc P. Co., 1914, 13 R. C. 712, 717.
Injuries, damages and law expenses.
28. Unusual sums expended for injuries and damages and law
expenses for particular years must, for rate-making purposes, be spread
over a longer period, for rates based upon the costs of particular years in
which extraordinary expenses have occurred would yield revenues con-
siderably above what is required in normal years. In re Invest. Electric
Rates in Oconto, 1913, 12 R. C. 584, 593.
Rates-Electric. — Making rates — elements considered 245
Lamp renewals.
29. The installation of the tungsten street lighting system also
necessitates an estimate of lamp renewals. From a great deal of data
collected in this office it is safe to assume that the cost over a period of
years for maintenance and renewals will be near to 80 cts. per 1000
burning hours. In re Columbus W. Sc Lt. Comm., 1913, 11 R. G. 449, 455.
Long and short hour use.
30. Under the more usual methods of classifying the expenses it often
happens that the rates computed for the short hour consumer become
prohibitory, and in order to attract customers must be arbitrarily reduced.
The losses sustained by thisreduction may have to be made up by raising
other rates. It may not often be possible to trace the causes which
make such arbitrary adjustment of the rates necessary to any improper
classification of the expenses, but the fact that such adjustments may have
to be made is apt to lead to doubts as to the accuracy of the method
employed. In re AppL La Crosse Gas Sc EL Co., 1908, 2 R. C. 3, 26.
31. Generally speaking, the rates should, as far as practicable, be
based upon cost. Short hour users are more costly to the plant than long
hour users, and consequently should pay higher rates. Unless the rates
charged in each case bear a rather close relation to the cost, there is apt
to be discrimination as between the customers in this, that some among
them are forced to contribute more than their share of the total income,
while others are charged less than they should pay. Dodgeville v. Dodge-
ville El. Lt. Sc P. Co., 1908, 2 R. G. 392, 412; In re Appl. North Milw. Lt. Sc
P. Co., 1909, 4 R. G. 89, 99-100; Ross et al. v. Burkhardt Millg. Sc El. P,
Co. 1910, 5 R. G. 139, 163; Harrington et al. v. T. M. E. R. Sc L. Co., 1910,
6 R. G. 64, 68; Superior Comm^l. Club et al. v. Superior W. Lt. Sc P. Co.,
1912, 10 R. C. 704, 798; In re Appl. Ft. Atkinson W. Sc Lt. Comm., 1913,
12 R. C. 260, 302.
32. Examination reveals that the cost per unit of current is much
greater for those who use their lights only a short time each day, than for
those who use their lights for longer periods daily. The reason for this is
found in the fact that the so-called constant expenses depend largely
upon the installation or capacity, rather than upon the amount of current
used. In re Appl. Medford Lt. Sc Htg. Co., 1908, 2 R. G. 421, 423; In re
Appl. Cumberland Mun. El. Ltg. Plant, 1909, 4 R. G. 214, 226-227; State
Journal Prtg. Co. et al. v. Madison Gas Sc El. Co., 1910, 4 R. G. 501,* 687-
688; City of Ripon v. Ripon Lt. Sc W. Co., 1910, 5 R. G. 1, 34; In re Appl.
Darlington El. Lt. Sc W. P. Co., 1910, 5 R. G. 397, 414-415; In re AppL
Jefferson Mun. EL Lt. Sc W. Plant, 1910, 5 R. G. 555, 569; City of Beloit v.
Beloit W. G. Sc EL Co., 1911, 7 R. G. 187, 369; Electric Theater et aL v.
Lodi EL Lt. Plant, 1911, 7 R. G. 745, 752.
33. Electric rates that are fixed without regard to the installation or
the maximum demand of the consumers and the length of time the current
is used by them, are likely to be discriminatory or inequitable. In re Men.
Sc Mar. LL Sc Tr. Co., 1909, 3 R. G. 778, 830; City of Manitowoc v. Mani-
towoc EL Lt. Co., 1910, 5 R. G. 360, 383; In re AppL Red Cedar VaL EL Co.,
1911, 6 R. G. 717, 758, 759.
246 Rates-Electric. — Making rates — elements considered^
Cost of service — Output, capacity and consumer costs.
34. In general the cost of supplying electricity or electric current to
the consumers is made up of two classes of expenses, one of which includes
the so-called fixed, and the other the so-called variable expenses. The
fixed expenses depend on the capacity or the maximum demand. The
variable expenses depend upon the amount of energy or current produced
or sold. The relation which these expenses bear to each other depends
very largely upon the conditions under which each particular plant is
operating. In re AppL La Crosse Gas & EL Co., 1907, 2 R. C. 3, 22; In re
Appl. Fox River Millg. Sc P. Co., 1907, 2 R. C. 135, 138; In re Appl. Alma
El. LI. Co., 1907, 2 R. C. 144, 147; In re Appl. Merrill Ry. & Ltg. Co.,
1907, 2 R. C. 148, 156; In re Appl. Chippewa Val. Ry. Lt. & P. Co.,
1908, 2 R. G. 311, 319; Dodgeville v. Dodgeville El Lt. Sc P. Co., 1908, 2 R. C.
392, 410; In re Men. & Mar. Lt. 6c Tr. Co., 1909, 3 R. C. 778, 825; In re
Appl. Cumberland Mun. El. Lt. Plant, 1909, 4 R. C. 214, 226; State Journal
Prtg. Co. et al. v. Madison Gas & El. Co., 1910, 4 R. C. 501, 687; City of
Ripon V. Ripon Lt. Sc W. Co., 1910, 5 R. C. 1, 30; Ross et al. v. Burkhardt
Millg. Sc El. P. Co., 1910, 5 R. C. 139, 163; City of Manitowoc v. Mani-
towoc El. Lt. Co., 1910, 5 R. C. 360, 385; In re Appl. Jefferson Mun. Et.
Lt. Sc \V. Plant, 1910, 5 R. C. 555, 570: In re Appl. Lancaster El. Lt. Co.,
1910, 6 R. C. 53, 56; In re Appl. Durand Lt. S: P. Co., 1911, 6 R. C. 334,
339-340; In re Appl. Red Cedar Valley El. Co., 1911, 6 R. C. 717, 756;
City ofBeloit v. Beloit W. G. Sc El. Co., 1911, 7 R. C. 187, 367; In re Invest.
Evansville Mun. El Lt. Sc W. Plant, 1912, 11 R. C. 197, 204-205; In re
Appl. Mt. Iloreb Ht. Lt. Sc P. Co., 1914, 13 R. C. 653, 660-661; Hood et al.
V. Monroe El. Co., 1914, 14 R. C. 227, 232.
As affected by stability of service.
35. Obviously, stabiHty of consumption is greatly to be desired by
the management of an electric utility and is equally to the interest of con-
sumers. Any large percentage of discontinued service during the year, re-
sulting in a comparatively large number of consumers being served for
less than twelve months per. year, is certain to have an adverse effect upon
the apportionment of expenses as between classes and the appropriate
rates. City of Ripon v. Ripon Lt. Sc W. Co., 1910, 5 R. C. 1, 37.
Rate of return.
36. Request was made for an interest allowance only large enough to
pay interest on the bonded indebtedness of the plant. Five per cent of
the fair value has been used in our computations as a reasonable rate of
return. In re Appl. Mun. El. Utility of Sun Prairie, 1914, 15 R. G. 189,
193.
Taxes.
37. The probability that taxing officers will use the value placed by
the Commission upon the property of the utility as the basis for assessing
higher taxes against the utility should be taken into consideration in
fixing rates for the services of the utility. Taxes are a legitimate expense
of production and must be met from the revenues of the utility. City of
Waukesha v. Waukesha G. Sc El. Co., 1913, 13 R. G. 100, 115-116.
Raies-Elcclric. — Making rates — elements considered 247
38. Though the utility in the instant case for some reason had not
paid any taxes up to date it is not likely that this situation will continue
and allowance has therefore been made for taxes in determining normal
expenses. In re Invest. Mosinee El. Lt. ik P. Co., 1914, 13 R. C. 712, 716.
39. It is clearly evident that some consideration should be given to
the increase in taxes in fixing rates for service. Otherwise, the revenue
from operation would be insufficient to meet the expense of running the
plant. Cihj'of Watertown v. Wateriown G. & El. Co., 1914, 14 R. G. 604,
614.
40. In order to determine the true cost of service for which consum-
ers of a municipal utility should pay there should be included ^n allowance
for estimated taxes. A private plant would have to pay taxes, and if a mu-
nicipal plant is exempted, taxes on other property holders throughout the
city must be raised as a result. The resulting increase is as truly a cost of
furnishing a utility service as is any other cost of operation. In re Appl.
Ft. Atkinson W. cfc Lt. Comm., 1913, 12 R. G. 260, 285; In re Appl. Stough-
ton Mun. El. Lt. System, 1909, 3 R. G. 484, 490; In re Appl. Cumberland
Mun. El. Lt. Plant, 1909, 4 R. C. 214, 216-217; In re Appl. Village of
Arcadia, 1912, 11 R. G. 216, 218; In re Appl. Columbus W. Sc Lt. Comm.,
1913, 11 R. G. 449, 456-457; In re Appl. Mun. El. Utility of Sun Prairie,
1914, 15 R. G. 189, 193; In re Invest. Waterloo Mun. W. & El. Plant, 1914,
15 R. G. 534, 540.
Wages and salaries.
41. Analysis of comparative data shows that the normal amount ex-
pended for wages and salaries is about 40 to 45 per cent of the total oper-
ating expenses, modified in individual instances by local conditions. City
of Rhinelander v. Rhinelander Ltg. Co., 1912, 9 R. G. 406, 431-432.
42. There seems to be very little doubt that a part of executive
officers' salaries should be considered in this instance as a part of the
profits of the business. In other words, liberal expenditure for salaries
which may be the means of obtaining efficient operation must be consid-
ered as at least part of the premium allowable for the efUciency obtained.
Hood et al. v. Monroe EL Co., 1^14, 14 R. G. 227, 231.
Development and retention of business.
43. In making an adjustment in the rate schedule of a utility, increas-
ing the rate to large power consumers is a serious matter, because there is
always the likelihood of such customers finding it advantageous to use
some other source of power. In the instant case we have given this matter
careful consideration, and we believe that the rate prescribed is low
enough to retain the business that the utility now has, and at the same
time high enough to pay the additional costs involved in furnishing the
service. In re Invest. Waterloo Mun. W. c^ El. Plant, 1914, 15 R. G. 534,
545.
44. While circumstances seem to furnish a strong argument for an
increase in the apphcant's rates, it must be said, on the other hand, that
the marketableness of the applicant's supply of power at rates much
higher than those now charged has not been demonstrated before the
Gommission, and, since ability to dispose of power in a somewhat limited
248 Rates-Electric. — Making rates — elements considered
market constitutes as influential a force upon the value of the supply as
any other factor, the establishment of rates regardless of such circum-
stances is a delicate and difficult task which should, however, be limited
by a reasonable maximum based upon the facts brought out in this case.
In re Appl. Rhinelander Power Co. to Amend its Rates, 1915, 15 R. C. 783,
813.
Economies in operation.
45. It is expected, and is quite generally found to be the fact, that
in combined plants the rates of general expenses or management costs
will be less than in the case of single utilities or plants operating a water,
gas, electric, or electric railway property alone. A combination of utili-
ties, such as this case presents, may offer many opportunities for economies
not possible in a single utility. Where such economies are made possible,
it would appear that while the public is entitled to some share in such
benefits as may result from such economies, at the same time the com-
pany is entitled to a reward for effecting the results described. City of
Beloit v.Beloit W. G. & El. Co., 1911, 7 R. C. 187, 285.
46. A public utility which possesses an especially economical source
of supply is not entitled to retain the entire saving effected by it, but a
portion of the saving should be given to the public in the form of lower
rates. In re Service and Rates Stevens Pt. Ltg. Co., 1914, 14 R. C. 350,
363, 364.
Hours during which current is used.
47. Under any conditions, the range of hours of current use is as
much a part of the schedule as the rates themselves. In re Appl. Merrill
Ry. Sc Ltg. Co., 1907, 2 R. C. 148, 165.
Relation between consumers and municipality.
48. The question as to whether the rates of a municipal utility must
be such that the cost of service shall rest entirely upon the consumers is
one which depends upon the circumstances for its answer, for the rates
must be fair to the consumers as well as to the owners of the utility and
the actual cost is not always the entire measure of fairness. In the instant
case, in view of the fact that the citizens of the village have failed so
largely to patronize their own utility, although they must have known
that their undivided support was necessary to its success, it appears un-
reasonable to load the entire loss of operation upon those who now use
the service of the utility. In re' Appl. Browntown Man. Lt. Plant, 1914,
14 R. C. 560, 563.
XV. MAXIMUM RATES.
Establishment of.
49. Maximum rates for electric service established: In re Appl.
Chippewa Val. Ry. Lt. cS: P. Co., 1908, 2 R. C. 311; 768; In re Invest. Milw.
Electric Rates, 1912, 9 R. G. 541; In re Invest. Chippewa Val. Ry. Lt. &
P. Co., 1912, 10 R. C. 692; 1913, 13 R. C. 19; 444; Hood et al. v. Monroe
El. Co., 1914, 14 R. C. 227; Jones et al. v. Berlin Public Service Co., 1914,
Raies-Electric. — Power rates 249
15 R. C. 121; In re Appl. Sun Prairie Miin. EL Plant, 1914, 15 R. C. 189;
In re Appl. Manitowoc W. cfc El. Plants, 1914, 15 R. C. 212; In re Invest.
Waterloo Mun. W. & El. Plant, 1914, 15 R. C. 534.
XVI METER RATES
Straight meter rates.
50. Uniform meter rates are, under normal conditions, indefensible
in that they do not follow the cost of furnishing the service. Citij of Ripon
V. Ripon Lt. Sc W. Co., 1910, 5 R. C. 1, 34; In re Appl. Fox River Millg.
Sc P. Co., 1907, 2 R. C. 135, 139; In re Men. <Sc Mar. Lt & Tr. Co., 1909,
3 R. C. 778, 827; In re Appl. Red Cedar Valley El. Co., 1911, 6 R. C. 717,
735-736; In re Appl. Village of Arcadia, 1912, 11 R. C. 216, 223-224; In re
Appl. Neshkoro Lt. cfc P. Co., 1913, 13 R. C. 52, 54; In re Service and Rates
Stevens Pt. Ltg. Co., 1914, 14 R. C. 350, 369.
XVII. METER RENTAL.
Paid by consumer. '
51. The practice of exacting a greater compensation from persons
for service rendered because they do not own their own meters, is clearly
in violation of the statute, sec. 1797/77-90. City of Lake Geneva v. Equitable
El. Lt. Co., 1911, 6 R. C. 203.
Paid by utility.
52. Meter rental to be paid by the utility to consumers owning
meters. Electric Theater et al. v. Lodi El. Lt. Plant, 1911, 7 R. C. 745.
XVIII. MINIMUM CHARGES.
See Minimum Chargks.
XIX. OUTSIDE CONSUMERS.
Rates for.
53. It would appear to be just and reasonable for a municipally
owned utility to charge for service to consumers situated outside the city
upon such a scale of rates as would be just and reasonable for a private
utility under similar circumstances. In re Appl. Ft. Atkinson W. & Lt.
Comm., 1913, 12 R. C. 260, 269.
54. Rates established for consumers situated outside municipal
limits. In re Ft. Atkinson W. & Lt. Comm., 1913, 12 R. C. 260; Douglas
et al. V. Equitable El. Lt. Co., 1913, 12 R. C. 337; 1914, 14 R. C. 381;
In re Appl. Richland Center El. Lt. Sc W. Plant, 1914, 14 R. C. 590.
XX. POWER RATES.
Basis of rates.
55. The main reason why electric power rates, as a class, are made
lower than the rates for lighting, is, that power is, as a rule, used for
250 Rates-Electric- Power rates
longer periods each day than is the case for Hghting. In re Appl. North
Milwaukee Lt. & P. Co., 1909, 4 R. C. 89, 99.
56. Several reasons are usually assigned for the giving of rates to
power service which are lower than the rates given to lighting service.
Among these reasons are the low demand of power service at the time of
the maximum load upon the station, and the desirability of building up
the day load. In the case of large installations, however, the reason is
largely to be found in the necessities of competition. To get and retain
the business the utility is forced to supply current at a cost no higher than
that at which the individual large consumer could supply himself from a
private plant. In many instances this means that the unit costs of the
utility must be considerably lower than the unit costs of the private
plant to compensate for the fact that the owner of the private plant is
often able to use the exhaust steam as a by-product for heating purposes
and thereby effect a saving in other of his business expenses. City of
Waukesha v. Waukesha G. Sc El. Co., 1913, 13 R. C. 100, 125.
57. The plant is well adapted to carry a relatively large power load,
and considerably more power than at present can be generated by this
plant \vithout materially increasing the operating expenses. The power
rate to b^ established should be such as will tend to build up the business
by inviting additional installations and longer daily use of the load.
In re Appl. Red Cedar Valley El. Co., 1911, 6 R. C. 717, 762.
Charging electric automobiles.
58. The charging of automobiles is a service usually furnished when
the demand on the central station is light, and many companies have
therefore accorded it special consideration in their rate schedules. To do
so appears sound and in keeping with the principles of cost of service
extensively commented upon in previous decisions of the Commission.
Harrington et al. u. T. M. E. R. & L. Co., 1910, 6 R. C. 64, 66.
Establislmaeiit of rates.
59. Rates for electric power service established. In re Appl. La
Crosse Gas <Sc El. Co., 1907, 2R. C. 3; In re Appl. Merrill Ry. c^ Ltg. Co.,
1907, 2 R. C. 148; In re Appl. Chippewa Val. Ry. Lt. & P. Co., 1908, 2 R. C.
311; 768; In re Appl. Stoughton Mun. El. Lt. Plant, 1909, 3 R. G. 484;
In re Appl. Men. & Mar. Lt. & Tr. Co., 1909, 3 R. C. 778; In re Appl.
North Milwaukee Lt. Sc P. Co., 1909, 4 R. C. 89; State Journal Prig. Co.
et al. V. Madison Gas & El. Co., 1910, 4 R. C. 501; City of Ripon v. Ripon
Lt. & W. Co., 1910, 5 R. C. 1; City of Manitowoc u. Manitowoc El. Lt. Co.,
1910, 5 R. C. 360; In re Appl. Bloomer El. Lt. Plant, 1911, 6 R. C. 506;
In re Appl. Red Cedar Valley El. Co., 1911, 6 R. C. 717; City of Beloit v.
Beloit W. G. Sc El. Co., \^\\, 1 R. C. 187; In re Appl. Chippewa VaL
Ry. Lt. & P. Co., 1912, 9 R. C. 305; City of Rhinelander v. Rhinelander
Ltg. Co., 1912, 9 R. C. 406; In re Invest. Milw. Electric Rates, 1912, 9 R. C.
541; In re Invest. Chippewa Val. Ry. Lt. & P. Co., 1912, 10 R. C. 692;
In re Appl. New Glarus Mun. El. Lt. <Sc W. Plant, 1912, 11 R. C. 53; In re
Invest. Evansville El. Lt. & W. Plant, 1912, 11 R. G. 197; In re Appl.
Columbus W. & Lt. Comm., 1913, 11 R. C. 449; In re Appl. Ft. Atkinson
W. <Sc Lt. Comm., 1913, 12 R. C. 260; Douglas et al. v. Equitable El. Lt.
Raies-Elcciric. — Rcasonablen. of adv. in narfic. cases 251
.Co., 1913, 12 R. C. 337; Bosencrans et al. v. Prairie City El. Co., 1913,
12 R. C. 413; In re Invest. Electric Rates in Oconto, 1913, 12 R. C. 584;
In re Appl. Neshkoro Lt. & P. Co., 1913, 13 R. C. 52; City of Waukesha
V. Waukesha G .<Sc El. Co., 1913, 13 R. C. 100; In re Appl. Darlington
El. Lt. Sz W. P. Co., 1913, 13 R. G. 344; In re Appl. City of Menasha,
1913, 13 R. C. 424; In re Appl. Mt. Horeb Ht. Lt. & P. Co., 1914, 13 R. G.
653; In re Invest. Mosinee El. Lt. & P. Co., 1914, 13 R. G. 712; Hood et al.
V. Monroe El. Co., 1914, 14 R. G. 227; In re Stevens Pt. Ltg. Co., 1914,
14 R. G. 350; Douglas et al. v. Equitable El. Lt. Co., 1914, 14 R. G. 381;
In re Appl. Richland Center El. Lt. cfc W. Plant, 1914. 14 R. G. 590; Jones
et al. V. Berlin Public Service Co., 1914, 15 R. G. 121; In re Appl. Sun
Prairie Mun. El. Plant, 1914, 15 R. G. 189; In re Appl. Manitowoc W.
6c El. Plants, 1914, 15 R. G. 212; In re Appl. Burkhardt Millg. & El. P.
Co., 1914, 15 R. G. 409; In re Appl. United Ht. Lt. & P. Co., 1914, 15 R. G.
505; In re Invest. Waterloo Mun. W. & El. Plant, 1914, 15 R. G. 534.
XXI. PUMPING RATES.
Establishment of.
60. Rates for municipal pumping established. In re Appl. Columbus
W. & Lt. Comm., 1913, 11 R. G. 449; In re Invest. Mosinee El. Lt. & P. Co.,
1914, 14 R. G. 743; In re Appl. Sun Prairie Mun. El. Plant, 1914, 15 R. G.
189.
XXII. RATE WARS.
Effect on utilities and on public.
61. Rate wars have a demoralizing effect upon business methods
and practices and usually result in future dissatisfaction and strife. In
the public utility field they are so clearly against public policy that they
should under no circumstances be permitted. Kenosha El. By. Co. v.
Kenosha G. 6c El. Co., 1911, 8 R. G. 119, 121-122; In re Invest. T. M. E. B.
6c L. Co. et al., 1912, 9 R. G. 541, 551.
XXIII. REASONABLENESS OF ADVANGE IN RATES IN
PARTIGULAR GASES.
Advance deferred.
62. Advance in rates deferred until such time as the utility should
keep its accounts in conformity to law. In re Appl. Neshkoro Lt. 6c P.
Co., 1913, 13 R. G. 52.
Classification of motion picture arc as lighting.
63. Applicant wishes to increase the rate for a moving picture arc
which has been classified as power and given a low rate. This arc is on
the same circuit as the ordinary lighting load and is used at the time of
the peak load of the plant. Held: The question at issue is one of classifi-
cation rather than of rates. The cost of service for a moving picture arc
is about the same as for general illumination, especially where the electric
plant is operated only at night, as in the present case, and where the use
252 Rates-Electric. — Reasonablen. of adv. in partic. cases
of the arc is entirely limited to the hours of commercial lighting. The
applicant is authorized to classify moving picture arcs under lighting
rates. In re Appl. Bruce W. & Lt. Comm., 1912, 9 R. G. 474.
Commercial lighting rates.
64. The question of reasonableness of advances in commercial
lighting rates was passed upon in the following cases: In re Appl. La
Crosse Gas Sc El. Co., 1907, 2 R. C. 3; In re Appl. Merrill Ry. 6c Lt. Co.,
1907, 2 R. C. 148; In re Appl. North Milwaukee Lt. & P. Co., 1909, 4 R. G.
89; In re Appl. Stoughton Mun. El. Lt. System, 1909, 3 R. G. 484; In re
Appl. Cumberland Mun. El. Lt. Plant, 1909, 4 R. G. 214; In re Appl.
Darlington El. Lt. & W. P. Co., 1910, 5 R. G. 397; In re Appl. Durand Lt.
&: P. Co., 1911, 6 R. G. 334; In re Appl. Bloomer El. Lt. Plant, 1911,
6 R. G. 506; In re Appl. La Crosse G. & El. Co., 1911, 8 R. G. 138; In re
Appl. Village of Whitehall. 1912, 9 R. G. 479; In re Appl. New Glarus
Mun. El. Lt. & W. Plant, 1912, 11 R. G. 53; In re Appl. Village of Arcadia,
1912, 11 R. G. 216; In re Appl. Chetek Lt. & P. Co., 1912, 11 R. G. 227;
In re Appl. Ft. Atkinson W. 8c Lt. Comm., 1913, 12 R. G. 260; In re Appl.
Neshkoro Lt. & P. Co., 1913, 13 R. G. 52; In re Appl. Darlington El. Lt.
& W. P. Co., 1913, 13 R. G. 344; In re Appl. City of Menasha, 1913,
13 R. G. 424; In re Appl. Endeavor El. Lt. & P. Co., 1913, 13 R. G. 448;
In re Appl. ML Horeb. Hi. Lt. & P. Co., 1914, 13 R. G. 653; In re Appl.
Village of Withee, 1914, 13 R. G. 704; In re Appl. Gilmanton Mill and El.
Plant, 1914, 14 R. G. 152; In re Service and Rates Stevens Pt. Ltg. Co.,
1914, 14 R. G. 350; In re Appl. Burkhardt Millg. & El. P. Co., 1914,
15 R. G. 409; In re Appl. Browntown Mun. Lt. Plant, 1914, 14 R. G. 560.
Minimum charges.
65. Utility authorized to establish a minimum charge. In re Appl.
Monticello El. Lt. Co., 1913, 11 R. G. 265; In re Appl. Chippewa Valley
Ry. Lt. & P. Co., 1913, 12 R: G. 548; In re Appl. Richland Center El.
Li. & W. Plant, 1914, 14 R. G. 590; In re City of Manitowoc, 1914, 14 R. G.
697; In re Appl. City of Manitowoc as El. 6c Water Utility, 1914, 15 R. G.
212; In re Appl. Whitewater El. Lt. Co., 1914, 15 R. G. 517.
Power rates.
66. The question of reasonableness of advances in electric power
rates was passed upon in the following cases: In re Appl. La Crosse
Gas & El. Co., 1907, 2 R. G. 3; In re Appl. Merrill Ry. cfc Ltg. Co., 1907.
2 R. G. 148; In re Appl. North Milwaukee Lt. & P. Co., 1909, 4 R. G. 89;
In re Appl. Stoughton Mun. El. Lt. System, 1909-, 3 R. G. 484; In re Appl.
H. T. Windsor Co., 1910, 5 R. G. 171; In re Appl. Darlington El. Lt. &
W. P. Co., 1910, 5 R. G. 397; In re Appl. Bloomer El. Lt. Plant, 1911,
6 R. G. 506; In re Appl. Red Cedar Val. El. Co., 1911, 6 R. G. 717; In re
Appl. La Crosse G. 6c El. Co., 1911, 8 R. G. 138; In re Appl. New Glarus
Mun. El. Lt. 6c W. Plant, 1912, 11 R. G. 53; In re Appl. Ft. Atkinson W. 6c
Lt. Comm., 1913, 12 R. G. 260; In re Appl. Neshkoro Lt. 6c P. Co., 1913,
13 R. G. 52; In re Appl. Darlington El. Lt. 6c W. P. Co., 1913, 13 R. G.
344; In re Appl. City of Menasha, 1913, 13 R. G. 424; In re Appl. Mt.
Horeb Ht. Lt. 6c P. Co., 1914, 13 R. G. 653; In re Service 6c Rates Stevens
Raies-Electric. — Reasonableness of — maiters considered 253
PL Ltg. Co., 1914, 14 R. C. 350; In re AppL Burkhardt Millg. & EL P. Co.,
1914, 15 R. C. 409; In re AppL Rhinelander Power Co., 1915, 15 R. G. 783.
Revision of rates.
67. Utility authorized to put into effect a revised schedule in order to
eliminate inequalities. In re AppL Fox River Millg. Sc P. Co., 1907,
2 R. C. 135; In re AppL Alma EL Lt. Co., 1907, 2 R. C. 144; In re AppL
Chetek Lt. & P. Co., 1908. 2 R. C. 662.
Street lighting rates.
68. The question of reasonableness of advances in street lighting
rates was passed upon in the following cases: In re AppL ML Horeb EL
Lt. Co., 1910, 6 R. C. 44; In re AppL Village of Whitehall, 1912, 9 R. G.
479; In re AppL Chippewa Val. Rij. Lt. & P. Co., 1912, 9 R. G. 500; In re
AppL New Glarus Mun. El. Lt. Sc W. PlanU 1912, 11 R. G. 53; In re AppL
Village of Arcadia, 1912, 11 R. G. 216; In re AppL Chetek Lt. & P. Co,,
1912, 11 R. G. 227; In re AppL Neshkoro LL Sc P. Co., 1913, 13 R. G. 52;
In re AppL Darlington EL Lt. Sc W. P. Co., 1913, 13 R. G. 344; In re AppL
ML Horeb Ht. Lt. Sc P. Co., 1914, 13 R. G. 653; In re AppL Village of
Withee, 1914, 13 R. G. 704; In re Service Sc Rates Stevens PL Ltg. Co., 1914,
14 R. G. 350; In re AppL Browntown Mun. Lt. Plant, 1914, 14 R. G. 560.
XXIV. REASONABLENESS OF RATES— MATTERS GONSID-
ERED IN DETERMINING REASONABLENESS.
Comparative data.
69. In order to arrive at a schedule of reasonable rates, a basis of
normal and reasonable costs must be established. It is not enough merely
to take an average of expenses for a given period, but expenses must be
obtained in detail for a sufficiently long period, and the details must be
studied and analyzed and compared with the costs of similar plants. In
re AppL Neshkoro LL Sc P. Co., 1913, 13 R. G. 52, 59-60.
Conditions inherent in the business.
70. It is impossible to discuss any rate schedule except in the light
of conditions inherent in the business. City of Ripon v. Ripon Lt. Sc W. Co.,
1910, 5 R. G. 1, 28; In re AppL Jefferson Mun. EL Lt. Sc W. Plant, 1910,
5 R. G. 555, 563.
Cost of service.
71. Reasonable rates can only be based upon normal and reasonable
cost of service, which means that the operating expenses and the in-
vestment should be normal and not excessive, in view of the conditions
under which the utihty must be operated. City of Beloit v. Beloit W. G. Sc
EL Co., 1911, 7 R. G. 187, 288; In re AppL Durand LL Sc P. Co., 1911,
6 R. G. 334, 336; City of Sheboygan v. Sheboygan Ry. Sc EL Co., 1911, 6
R. C. 353, 355; In re AppL Red Cedar Valley EL Co., 1911, 6 R. G. 717,
721; //J re AppL La Crosse G. Sc EL Co., 1911, 8 R. G. 138, 174-175.
254 Rates-Electric. — Reasonableness of — matters considered
Cost of service — Equipment rental.
72. The cost of equipment rental paid by the appHcant in the present
case seems to partake largely of the characteristics of interest, deprecia-
tion and, perhaps, taxes as well. In re Appl. Red Cedar Valley El. Co.,
1911, 6 R. C. 717, 732.
Local conditions.
73. In passing upon rate schedules it is often necessary to consider
local conditions as well as the economic principles upon which they
should rest. In re Appl. North Milwaukee Lt. & P. Co., 1909, 4 R. G. 89,
102-103; City of Ripon v. Ripon Lt. & W. Co., 1910, 5 R. C. 1, 28; In re
Appl. Jefferson Mun.El.Lt. cfc W. Plant, 1910, 5 R. C. 555, 563.
Relation between investment and growth of business.
74. In determining the reasonableness of rates careful inquiries
should be directed to determine the relation between the investment line
and the growth of business line at the particular period or year upon
which the determination of the cost of service and, therefore, the rates
^re to be determined. City of Beloit v. Beloit W. G. & El. Co., 1911, 7 R. C.
187, 289-290.
XXV. REASONABLENESS OF RATES IN PARTICULAR CASES.
Additions to schedule.
75. Application to establish certain rate provisions. In re Appl. Ft.
Atkinson W. & Lt. Comm., 1913, 12 R. C. 729.
Adjustment or revision of rates.
76. Investigation of applications to adjust or revise rates. In re
Appl. Portage El. Lt. Co., 1908, 2 R. C. 258; In re Appl. Chippewa Valley
Ry. Lt. <Sc P. Co., 1908, 2 R. C. 311; In re Appl. Medford Lt. Sz Ht. Co.,
1908, 2 R. C. 421; In re Appl. Waupaca El. Lt. Sc Ry. Co., 1910, 5 R. C.
190; In re Appl. Jefferson Man. El. Lt. d^ W. Plant, 1910, 5 R. C. 555;
In re Appl. Eagle River Lt. <k \V. Co., 1911, 6 R. C. 521; In re Appl. Chip-
pewa Valley Ry. Lt. <& P. Co., 1912, 9 R. C. 305; In re Invest. Evansville
Mun.El. Lt. <fc W. Plant, 1912, 11 R. C. 197; In re Appl. Columbus W. Sc
Lt. Comm., 1913, 11 R. C.'449; City of Green Bay v. Green Bay G. Sc El.
Co., 1913, 12 R. C. 324.
Book charge for power — Interdependent companies.
77. An excessively low book charge for power suppUed by one of two
interdependent companies to the other is not necessarily conclusive on
the Commission, for the Commission can no more recognize such a charge
as proper than it could an unreasonably high book charge. A revision of
the power expense to meet the existing conditions is therefore made in
the instant case. In re Service and Rates Stevens Pt. Ltg. Co., 1914, 14
R. C. 350, 363.
Rates-Electric. — Reasonableness of in particular cases 255
Competitive rates.
78. Investigation of rates of competing utilities to eliminate alleged
undesirable practices. Kenosha EL Ry. Co. v. Kenosha G. & El. Co., 1911,
8 R. C. 119; In re Invest. Milwaukee Electric Rates, 1912, 9 R. C. 541; 10
R. C. 613; In re Invest. Electric Rates in Oconto, 1913, 12 R. C. 584.
Discriminatory rates.
79. Investigation of alleged unjustly discriminatory rates. In re
Invest. R. Connor Co., 1911, 8 R. C. 80; In re Invest. Chippewa Valley Ry.
Lt. & P. Co., 1912, 10 R. C. 692; 1913, 13 R. C. 19, 444; Kittleson et al. v.
Elroy Mun. W. & Lt. Plant, 1914, 14 R. C. 485; In re Invest. Waterloo
Mun. W. <k El. Plant, 1914, 15 R. C. 534.
Discriminatory and excessive rates.
80. Investigation of alleged unjustly discriminatory and excessive
rates. In re Men. & Mar. Lt. & Tr. Co., 1909, 3 R. C. 778; State Journal
Prtg. Co. et al. v. Madison Gas & El. Co., 1910, 4 R. C. 501; Ross et al. v.
Burkhardt Millg. <Sc El. P. Co., 1910, 5 R. C. 139; Cunningham et al. v.
Chippewa Falls W. Wks. <Sc Ltg. Co., 1910, 5 R. C. 302; City of Beloit v.
Beloit W. G. & El. Co., 1911, 7 R. C. 187; Electric Theater et al. v. Lodi El.
Lt. & P. Plant, 1911, 7 R. C. 745; Superior Comnil. Club et al. v. Superior
W. Lt. & P. Co., 1912, 10 R. G. 704; Jones et al. v. Berlin Public Service
Co., 1914, 15 R. C. 121; In re Appl. Sun Prairie Mun. El. Plant, 1914, 15
R. C. 189.
Excessive rates.
81. Investigation of alleged excessive rates. City of Ripon v. Ripon
Lt. & W. Co., 1910, 5 R. C. 1; City of Manitowoc v. Manitowoc El. Lt. Co.,
1910, 5 R. C. 360; In re Madison Gas cfc El. Co., 1911, 7 R. C. 152; City of
Rhinelander v. Rhinelander Ltg. Co., 1912, 9 R. C. 406; Douglass et al. v.
Equitable El. Lt. Co., 1913, 12 R. C. 337; City of Waukesha v. Waukesha'
G. & El. Co., 1913, 13 R. C. 100; In re Madison G. & El. Co., 1913, 13 R. G.
259; In re Invest. Mosinee El. Lt. & P. Co., 1914, 13 R. G. 712; Hood et al.
v. Monroe El. Co., 1914, 14 R. G. 227; Douglass et al. v. Equitable El. Lt.
Co., 1914, 14 R. G. 381; In re Appl. United Heat Lt. & P. Co. of Delavan,
1914, 15 R. G. 505.
Overcharges.
82. Investigation of alleged overcharges. In re Invest. Northwestern
Ll.&P. Co., 1911, 7 R. G. 59.
Pumping rates.
83. Investigation of municipal pumping rates. In re Invest. Mosinee
El. Lt. & P. Co., 1914, 14 R. G. 743.
Reduction in rates.
84. Reduction in rates ordered notwithstanding uncertainty due to
failure of utility to keep accounts required by law. City of Rhinelander v.
Rhinelander Ltg. Co., 1912, 9 R. G. 406.
256 Rates-Electric. — Reasonableness of in particular cases .^
Street lighting rates.
85. Investigation of alleged excessive street lighting rates. Dodgeville
V. Dodgeville El. L. & P. Co., 1908, 2 R. C. 392.
XXVI. RECONNECTION CHARGES.
Establisliinent of.
86. Charges for reconnection of service established. State Journal
Prtg. Co. et al. v. Madison G. Sc El. Co., 1910, 4 R. C. 501; Cunningham
et al. V. Chippewa Falls W. Wks. & Ltg. Co., 1910, 5 R. C. 302; City of
Beloit V. Beloit W. G. & El. Co., 1911, 7 R. C. 187; In re Invest. Miliv.
Electric Rates, 1912, 9 R. C. 541; In re Invest. Evansville El. Lt. & W. Plant,
1912, 11 R. C. 197; In re Appl. Columbus W. & Lt. Comm., 1913, 11 R. C.
449; City of Green Bay v. Green Bay Gas & El. Co., 1913, 12 R. C. 324;
In re Invest. Electric Rates in Oconto, 1913, 12 R. C. 584; In re Appl. Ft.
Atkinson W. & Lt. Comm., 1913, 12 R. C. 729; City of Waukesha v. Wau-
kesha G. & El. Co., 1913, 13 R. C. 100; In re Madison G. d: El. Co., 1913,
13 R. C. 259; In re Appl. Mt. Horeb Ht. Lt. & P. Co., 1914, 13 R. C. 653;
In re Invest. Mosinee El. Lt. Sc P. Co., 1914, 13 R. C. 712; Jones et al. v.
Berlin Public Service Co., 1914, 15 R. C. 121; In re Appl. Sun Prairie Mun.
El. Plant, 1914, 15 R. C. 189; In re Appl. United Ht. Lt. Sc P. Co., 1914,
15 R. C. 505; In re Appl. Whitewater El Lt. Co., 1914, 15 R. C. 517; In re
Invest. Waterloo Mun. W. Sc El. Plant, 1914, 15 R. C. 534.
XXVII. SERVICE CHARGES.
Establishmeiit of.
87. Lighting. — Service charges for electric lighting service estab-
lished. In re Appl. La Crosse Gas Sc El. Co., 1907, 2 R. C. 3; 1911, 8 R, C.
138; In re Invest. Milw. Electric Rates, 1912, 9 R. C. 541; 10 R. C. 613;
In re Invest. Chippewa Val Ry. Lt. & P. Co., 1912, 10 R. C. 692; In re
Appl. New Glarus Mun. El. Lt. & W. Plant, 1912, 11 R. C. 53; In re Invest.
Electric Rates in Oconto, 1913, 12 R. C. 584; In re Invest. Chippewa Val.
Ry. Li. cfc P. Co., 1913, 13 R. C. 19; 444; In re Appl. Village of Withee,
1914, 13 R. C. 704.
Power. — Service charges for electric power service established. In re
Appl. La Crosse Gas Sc El. Co., 1907, 2 R. C. 3; Ross et al. v. Burkhardt
Millg. Sc El P. Co., 1910, 5 R. C. 139; City of Manitowoc v. Manitowoc
El LI Co., 1910, 5 R. C. 360; In re Appl Red Cedar Valley El Co., 1911,
6 R. C. 717; In re Appl. Chippewa Val Ry. Lt. Sc P. Co., 1912, 9 R. C.
305; City of Rhinelander v. Rhinelander Ltg. Co., 1912, 9 R. C. 406; In re
Invest. Milw. Electric Rates, 1912, 9 R. C. 541; 10 R. C. 613; In re Appl
New Glarus Mun. El. Lt. S: W. Plant, 1912, 11 R. C. 53; In re Invest.
Evansville El. Lt. Sc W. Plant, 1912, 11 R. C. 197; In. re Appl Columbus
W. Sc Lt. Comm., 1913, 11 R. C. 449; In re Appl Ft. Atkinson W. Sc Lt.
Comm., 1913, 12 R. C. 260; Douglas et al. v. Equitable El. Lt. Co., 1913,
12 R. C. 337; Rosencrans et a/, v. Prairie City El Co., 1913, 12 R. C. 413;
In re Invest. Electric Rafes in Oconto, 1913, 12 R. C. 584; In re Appl.
Neshkoro Li. Sc P. Co., 1913, 13 R. C. 52; City of Waukesha v. Waukesha
Rates-Elect ric. — Street lighting rates 257
G. & El. Co., 1913, 13 R. C. 100; In re Appl. Darlington El. Lt. & W. P.
Co., 1913, 13 R. C. 344; In re Appl. Mt. Iloreb Hi. Lt. d: P. Co., 1914, 13
R. C. 653; In re Invest. Mosinee EL Lt. & P. Co., 1914, 13 R. G. 712;
Hood et at. v. Monroe El. Co., 1914, 14 R. C. 227; Jones et al. v. Berlin
Public Service Co., 1914, 15 R. C. 121; In re Appl. Sun Prairie Mun. El.
Plant, 1914, 15 R. C. 189; In re Invest. Waterloo Mun. W. & El. Plant,
1914, 15 R. C. 534; In re Appl. Rhinelander P. Co., 1915, 15 R. C. 783.
XXVIII. SHORT TIME SERVICE.
Rates for.
88. Rates for short time or temporary electric service established.
In re Appl. H. T. Windsor Co., 1910, 5 R. C. 171; In re Invest. Milwaukee
Electric Rates, 1912, 9 R. C. 541; In re Invest. Evansville El. Lt. & W.
Plant, 1912, 11 R. G. 197; In re Appl. Ft. Atkinson W. <Sc Lt. Comm., 1913,
12 R. G. 729; In re Appl. Sun Prairie Mun. El. Plant, 1914, 15 R. G.
189; In re Invest. Waterloo Mun. W. Sz El. Plant, 1914, 15 R. G. 534.
XXIX. SPEGIAL GONTRAGT RATES.
Status of.
89. G. S. Morris, the Wisconsin Granite Go. and the Wright Mills
are at present purchasing current for power under special contracts. The
rates at which these consumers are charged are not the same as the rates
for the regular schedule, but since the service is not similar to that of
other users it cannot be concluded on that ground that the rates are
unjustly discriminatory. It appears inadvisable to change the rates under
these contracts at this time because of possible disturbance of the whole
business. The contracts will be at all times under the supervision of the
Commission. Jones et al. v. Berlin Public Service Co., 1914, 15 R. G.
121, 137.
90. The special contract for power which the company has given shall
remain in force until it expires, but it shall not be renewed. In re Appl,
United Heat Li. Sc P. Co. of Delavan, 19U, 15 R. G. 505, 515.
XXX. STREET LIGHTING RATES.
Basis of rates.
91. As the burning period of the street lamps in the present case is
liable to considerable fluctuation, it would be more satisfactory to estab-
lish a rate composed of a fixed and a variable charge, instead of a fixed
amount per lamp per year. In re Appl. Columbus W. & Lt. Comm., 1913,
IIR.G. 449,463.
92. Certain investment hazards are greater under short term con-
tracts than for the longer periods, consequently a greater annual amortiza-
tion charge is necessary on the annual basis. Should this service be con-
tracted for on a basis of ten years service, the company will undoubtedly
be willing to reduce the rate somewhat. Jones et al. v. Berlin Public
Service Co., 1914, 15 R. G. 121, 138.
258 Rates-Electric. — Street lighting rates
Contract provisions.
93. As a rule the city is the only user of street lighting service, and
as the total cost of such service must first be determined before a fair rate
per unit can be established, the logical conclusion naturally follows that
payment can as well be made for the service of the system as a whole as
for a unit of such service, provided there is to be no flexibility in the extent
of the system contracted for. But such flexibility must ordinarily be pro-
vided for to meet the changeable requirements of the city. Since these
changes consist chiefly of the addition of lamps, and the relation of the num-
ber so added to the total number provided measures fairly well the increased
cost to the utility, it is believed that the individual lamp will, at the pres-
ent time, most satisfactorily serve as the measure of payment for the system
as a whole, and especially for the amount of service added above the
original provision of the contract. In re Jt. Appl. Waupaca EL Lt. & R.
Co. and Waupaca, 1912, 8 R. G. 586, G70.
Establishment of rates.
94. Rates for electrical street lighting established. City of Ripon v.
Ripon Lt. & W. Co., 1910, 5 R. G. 1; In re Appl. Jefferson Mun. El. Lt. &
W. Plant, 1910, 5 R. G. 555; City of Sheboygan v. Sheboygan Ry. & El. Co.,
1911, 6 R. G. 353; Lothrop v. Village of Sharon, 1912, 8 R. G. 479; In re
Appl. Chippewa Val. Ry. Lt. & P. Co., 1912, 9 R. C. 305; City of Rhine-
lander V. Rhinelander Ltg. Co., 1912, 9 R. G. 406; In re Appl. Village of
Whitehall, 1912, 9 R. G. 479; In re Appl. New Glarus Mun. El. Lt. & W.
Plant, 1912, 11 R. G. 53; In re Invest. Evansville El. Lt. & W. Plant, 1912,
11 R. G. 197; In re Appl. Village of Arcadia, 1912, 11 R. G. 216; In re
Appl. Chetek Lt. & P. Co., 1912, 11 R. G. 227; In re Appl. Columbus W. &
Lt. Comm., 1913, 11 R. G. 449; In re Appl. Ft. Atkinson W. & Lt. Comm.,
1913, 12 R. G. 260; Douglas et al. v. Equitable El. Lt. Co., 1913, 12 R. G.
337; In re Appl. Neshkoro Lt. Sc P. Co., 1913, 13 R. G. 52; City of Waukesha
V. Waukesha G. Sc El. Co., 1913, 13 R. G. 100; In re Appl. Darlington El.
Lt. & W. P. Co., 1913, 13 R. G. 344; In re Appl. Mt. Horeb Ht. Lt. & P.
Co., 1914, 13 R. G. 653; In re Appl. Village of Withee, 1914, 13 R. G. 704;
In re Invest. Mosinee El. Lt. & P. Co., 1914, 13 R. G. 712; In re Stevens Pt.
Ltg. Co., 1914, 14 R. G. 350; Douglas et al. v. Equitable El. Lt. Co., 1914,
14 R. G. 381; Kittleson et al. v. Elroy Mun. W. & Lt. Plant, 1914, 14 R. G.
485; In re Appl. Browntown Mun. Lt. Plant, 1914, 14 R. G. 560; City of
Watertown v. Watertown G. & El. Co., 1914, 14 R. G. 604; Jones et al. v.
Berlin Public Service Co., 1914, 15 R. G. 121; In re Appl. Sun Prairie
Mun. El. Plant, 1914, 15 R. G. 189; In re Appl. United Ht. Lt. & P. Co.,
1914, 15 R. G. 505; In re Appl. Waterloo Mun. W. <Sc El. Plant, 1914, 15
R. G. 534.
Provisions for outage.
95. Since no system of street lighting so far designed has been entirely
free from outage of individual lamps, it seems that provision should be
made for a reasonable amount of outage. In re Jt. Appl. Waupaca El.
Lt. & R. Co. and Waupaca, 1912, 8 R. C. 586. 672.
Rates-Express.— Minimum charges 259
RATES— EXPRESS.
I. ADVANCE IN RATES.
II. INTERSTATE AND INTRASTATE RATES.
III. MAKING RATES— ELEMENTS CONSIDERED.
IV. MINIMUM CHARGES.
V. REASONABLENESS OF RATES— MATTERS CONSIDERED IN
DETERMINING REASONABLENESS.
VI. REASONABLENESS OF RATES IN PARTICULAR CASES.
I. ADVANCE IN RATES.
Grounds for advance.
1 . Changes in rates or classification which have the effect of disturbing
long estabhshed business conditions which have grown up in reUance upon
the continuance of the existing system of rates or the existing classification
should not be made except for good reasons. Wisconsin Box Co. et al. v.
C. M. & St. P. R. Co. et al., 1909, 3 R. C. 605, 617; M. Carpenter Baking
Co. et al. V. Wells Fargo & Co. et al., 1911, 8 R. C. 1, 13.
II. INTERSTATE AND INTRASTATE RATES.
Uniformity of.
2. While it is not absolutely essential, it is decidedly preferable that
the interstate and intrastate graduates or scales regulating the relative
charges for shipments of different weights, and the classifications regulat-
ing the relative charges for different commodities, should be as nearly
the same as the conditions under which the two classes of business are
conducted will permit. In re Invest. Express Rates, 1913, 12 R. C. 1, 28.
'ill. MAKING RATES— ELEMENTS CONSIDERED.
Cost of service — Movement and terminal expenses.
3. The express service consists of two major parts, the terminal
service, the cost of which is ver>' nearly independent of the length of haul,
and the movement service, the cost of which varies almost directly with
the distance. In re Invest. Express Rates, 1913, 12 R. C. 1, 34.
Railroad cost.
4. Inasmuch as the express company directly bears practically all the
terminal expenses, the railroad cost of handling shipments increases almost
as fast as the distance, so that the railroad, if receiving the same per cent
of charges on all shipments, derives more profit from the short than the
the long hauls. In re Invest. Express Rates, 1913, 12 R. C. 1, 34.
IV. MINIMU^f CHARGES.
Purpose of charge.
5. Careful analysis of express operations reveals that a considerable
expense is incurred, for every shipment, which is practically the same for
260 Rates-Express. — Minimum charges
all whether the shipments weigh one ounce or fifty pounds, and whether
they move between stations ten or a hundred miles apart. The shipment
cost is the fixed mininjum cost of handling applying to all shipments. In
re Invest. Express Rates, 1913, 12 R. G. 1, 36.
V. REASONABLENESS OF RATES— MATTERS CONSIDERED IN
DETERMINING REASONABLENESS.
Competitive conditions.
6. While questions pertaining to classification and charges under
competitive commercial conditions, when taken as a whole, may be of
diminishing importance, and, in most respects, secondary to the cost of
the service, they are in many instances important enough to vitally affect
the rates of transportation. M. Carpenter Baking Co. et al. v. Wells Fargo
cfc Co. e/ aZ., 1911, 8 R. C. 1, 11. •
Cost of service.
7. One of the most important elements in determining the reasonable-
ness of express rates is the cost of performing the service. In re Invest.
Express Rates, 1913, 12 R. G. 1, 19.
Number of packages.
8. The number of packages included in a shipment affects the cost
of handling, but the charge for extra packages in a shipment can be made
commensurate with the cost by proper rules in regard to aggregating. In
re Invest. Express Rates, 1913, 12 R. G. 1, 36-37.
Risk.
9. The insurance element as regards value and liability to damage is
partly taken account of in the shipment, weight and weight-distance
costs, so that for the ordinary shipment it need not be considered, and the
additional cost for the shipments which are extraordinary in these regards
can be taken care of through higher classification or by additions to the
regular charges. In re Invest. Express-Rates, 1913, 12 R. G. 1, 37.*
Shipment costs.
10. Shipment costs include the greater part of the express company
costs and in addition a small part of the railroad costs. In re Invest.
Express Rates, 1913, 12 R. G. 1, 37.
Shipment and weight costs.
11. The shipment and weight costs are terminal costs except in a very
small part. That is, they are costs which would accrue were the ship-
ments to merely pass through th€ ordinary steps of the express service
without moving any appreciable distance. In re Invest. Express Rates,
1913, 12 R. G. 1, 38. ,
Size of shipment.
12. The size of the shipment plays a very important part in determin-
ing costs. In many respects it is of as great or greater importance than
weight. In re Invest. Express Rates, 1913, 12 R. G. 1, 37.
Rafes-Exprcss. — Reasonableness of in particular cases 261
Weight cost.
13. Weight cost includes only those items of cost which vary for
different shipments in accordance with their weight without regard to
the distance the shipments are carried. A considerable part of the ex-
press company's expenses and a smaller part of the railroad's are of this
nature. In re Invest. Express Rates, 1913, 12 R. G. 1, 37-38.
Weight-distance cost.
14. The weight-distance cost includes all the costs in which distance
is a factor. In re Invest. Express Rates, 1913, 12 R. C. 1, 38.
VI. REASONABLENESS OF RATES IN PARTICULAR CASES.
Rates in generaL
15. Petitioners allege exorbitant express charges between Wisconsin
points on mixed shipments of baked goods consisting mostly of bread
with a small proportion of cake. Respondent express companies formerly
transported bread over their respective lines at. "general special" rates,
about 20 per cent lower than their merchandise rates, and allowed the
same rates on mixed shipments of bread and cake when bread comprised
at least half the total weight. The general special rate is ordered rein-
stated. M. Carpenter Baking Co. et al. v. Wetts Fargo Sc Co. et al., 1911,
8 R. C. 1, 15.
16. Complaint that the rates charged by the respondent express
companies for the transportation of express matter between Milwaukee
and other points in Wisconsin are grossly excessive, unreasonable and
extortionate. The petitioner alleges unreasonable and discriminatory
practices and conditions with respect to the schedule of graduated charges
for shipments of less than 100 lb.; with respect to the classification of
merchandise, under which multiples of the regular merchandise rates
are charged upon certain classes of merchandise; with respect to the rules
and regulations regarding the aggregating of weights and the prescribing
of minimum weights according to the dimensions of packages; and with
respect to the return of empty containers. The petitioner further alleges
that the respondent companies have failed to provide reasonable joint
rates; that their minimum charges are excessive; and that the ounce
rates upon certain kinds of express matter are granted only subject to
the unlawful and discriminatory condition that the charges on such
shipments be prepaid. Respondent ordered to discontinue present rates
and to put into efTect the rates approved by the Commission. In re
Invest. Express Rates, 1913, 12 R. C. 1.
17. The date on which the order issued in this matter on May 20,
1913 (12 R. C. 1, 43), should become effective has been postponed
from time to time pending the decision of the appeal from the order to
the circuit court for Dane county and the making by the Commission of
certain additional investigations. The latest postponement makes the
order effective on February 1, 1914. The respondent express companies,
however, desire to put into effect rates for temporar>^ use which will be in
harmony with the interstate express rates recently established by the
262 Rates-Express. — Reasonableness of in particular cases
Interstate Commerce Commission to become effective February 1, 1914.
Held: Though the rates proposed by the express companies do not
entirely agree with the Commission's ideas of what those rates should be,
it is the opinion of the Commission that, in view of the fact that the rates
as proposed will confer many benefits on the shippers of the state, these
rates should be permitted to become effective for the time being with the
exception of such as are higher than the interstate rates between the same
blocks would be. In re Invest. Express Rates, 1914, 13 R. C. 666.
18. Complaint that the rate of 75 cts. per 100 lb. on laundry moving
between Manitowoc and Green Bay is excessive. Held: The rate of
75 cts. is high for the short distance involved. If defects encountered
in the Interstate Commerce Commission's plan of rates are due only to a
rigid adherence to the method of computation, the defects should be
remedied. The respondent is ordered to discontinue its charges under
Scale No. 5 for the transportation of express matter between block 537,
sub-block H, and block 538, sub-block 0, and substitute therefor the
charges under Scale No. 2. Gray & Zenter v. American Express Co.,
1914, 14 R. G. 817.
Single package rule.
19. A rule of an express company, requiring that only commodities
intended for a single consignee shall be shipped in a single package, is a
reasonable regulation. Souvenir Novelty Co. v. American Exp. Co.,
1907, 1 R. C. 731.
RATES— GAS.
Discounts for prompt payment of bills, see Rules and Regulations, 19.
Discrimination in gas rates, see Discrimination. 28-29.
I. FLAT rates.
II. FUEL AND LIGHTING RATES.
Ill MAKING RATES— ELEMENTS CONSIDERED.
IV. METER RENTALS.
V. MINIMUM CHARGES.
VI. REASONABLENESS OF ADVANCE IN RATES IN PARTICULAR
CASES.
VII. REASONABLENESS OF RATES— MATTERS CONSIDERED IN
DETERMINING REASONABLENESS.
VIII. REASONABLENESS OF RATES IN PARTICULAR CASES.
IX. RECONNECTION CHARGE.
X. SERVICE CHARGES
XL STREET LIGHTING RATES.
I. FjLAT RATES.
Generally undesirable. "^ i^
1. Flat rates are seldom based on cost analysis, and hence it seems
for the best interests of everyone to do away with them if possible.
Lothrop V. Village of Sharon, 1912, 8 R. C. 479, 488.
Rates-Gas. — Making rates — elements considered 263
II. FUEL AND LIGHTING RATES.
Two-rate system.
2. The system of charging a higher rate for gas used for Hghting
purposes than the charge for the product used for fuel purposes has been
in efTect in a considerable number of cities and finds its defense in the theory
that the rates should vary with regard to the value of the service furnished.
We are inclined to believe that the logic by which this system of charging
has been defended is founded upon incorrect reasoning. There is also a
very pronounced tendency to depart from the two-rate system. In view
of these facts there appears no reason why the two rates should be con-
tinued in respondent's schedule and in the rates provided. City of Ripon
V. Ripon Lt. & W. Co., 1910, 5 R. C. 1, 48; City of Racine v. Racine Gas
Lt. Co., 1911, 6 R. C. 228, 319.
III. MAKING RATES— ELEMENTS CONSIDERED.
Cost of service.
3. As the earnings of the utilities are derived from the rates they are
charging for services, it necessarily follows that the cost of the service is
one of the leading elements that must be considered in fixing such rates.
It is not the only element upon which the rates depend, but in this and
many other cases it is the most important element. In re Appl. Manito-
woc Gas Co., 1908, 3 R. C. 163, 171; State Journal Prtg. Co. v. Madison
G. & El. Co., 1910, 4 R. C. 501, 740; City of Racine v. Racine Gas Lt: Co.,
1911, 6 R. C. 228, 245.
4. It has been demonstrated repeatedly that the total cost of gas
service per 1000 cubic feet consumed decreases with increased consump-
tion. City of Beloit v. Beloit W. G. <Sc El. Co., 1911, 7 R. C. 187, 352.
Distribution of losses resulting from certain classes of
service.
5. There is a difference in the cost of serving the various consumers,
and the cost to the smallest consumer is more than he can be required to
pay. ' Should the rate to such users be based entirely upon costs, they
would stop taking gas. This is recognized in the preparation of rate
schedules. It is necessary to spread the loss resulting from supplying
the smallest users below cost over a large portion of the consumption.
City of Milwaukee v. Milwaukee G. Lt. Co., 1913, 12 R. C. 441, 487.
Output, capacity and consumer costs.
6. Consumer data are an essential part of rate material. Without
them it is impossible to prepare a schedule which would be accurate and
practicable. City of Ripon v. Ripon Lt. Sc W. Co., 1910, 5. R. C. 1, 57.
7. In general the principles which govern the cost analysis of electric
rates apply to gas rates, but in a lesser degree. This is due to the difference
in the nature of the gas business. It is not necessary to have such large
plant capacity to meet the maximuni daily load or demand, since through
the use of the gas holder, in which the product may be stored, the producing
264 Rates-Gas. — Making rates — elements considered
capacity of the plant may be operated at a uniform rate during the day,
the excess of production during the hours of small demand being stored
and put into the distribution system when the demand exceeds the capacity.
The holder, however, does not provide for the large seasonal fluctuation,
nor does it meet perfectly the requirements of the daily variations. City
of Rip on V. Bipon Lt. & W. Co., 1910, 5 R. C. 1, 56; In re Appl. Green Bay
Gas & El. Co., 1910, 5 R. C. 101, 104; City of Bacine v. Bacine Gas Lt. Co.,
1911, 6 R. C. 228, 309.
Cost of service — Taxes.
8. Taxes are costs over which the utility has no control and their
effect upon the cost per unit must be given serious weight in the deter-
mination of a rate schedule. Meyer et al. v. Sheboygan G. Lt. Co., 1913,
11 R. C. 309, 315-316; City of Waukesha v. Waukesha G. & El. Co., 1913,'
13 R. C. 100, 115-116; Yanko et al. v. Portage American Gas Co., 1913,
13 R. C. 136, 141.
Economies in operation.
9. It is expected, and is quite generally found to be the fact, that in
combined plants the rates of general expenses or management costs will
be less than in the case of single utilities or plants operating a water, gas,
electric, or electric railway property alone. A combination of utilities,
such as this case presents, may offer many opportunities for economies
not possible in a single utility. Where such economies are made possible,
it would appear that while the pubhc is entitled to some share in such
benefits as may result from such economies, at the same time the company
is entitled to a reward for effecting the results described. City of Beloit
V. Beloit W. G. & El. Co., 1911, 7 R. C. 187, 285.
IV. METER RENTALS.
Paid by utility.
10. Where a consumer owns the meter the utility is to acquire the
meter or pay an annual rental of 50 cts. to the owner. Lothrop v. Village
of Sharon, 1912, 8 R. C. 479, 488.
V. MINIMUM CHARGES.
See Minimum Charges.
VI. REASONABLENESS OF ADVANCE IN RATES IN
PARTICULAR CASES.
Question of reasonableness determined.
11. The question of reasonableness of advance in rates was passed
upon in the following cases: 7/7 re Appl. Manitowoc Gas Co., 1908,
3 R. C. 163; In re Appl. La Cros.se G. & El. Co., 1911, 8 R. C. 138; In re
Appl. Manitowoc G. Co., 1913, 13 R. C. 325.
Raies-Gas. — Reasonableness^ of in particular cases 265
VII. REASONABLENESS OF RATES— MATTERS CONSIDERED
IN DETERMINING REASONABLENESS.
Cost of service.
12. Rates for the services rendered by public utilities should very
largely be based upon the cost to the plants of furnishing the services.
City of Beloit v. Beloit W. G. & El. Co., 1911, 7 R. G. 187, 287.
13. It is well known that the cost of gas service per 1000 cubic feet
consumed decreases with increased consumption. Lothrop v. Village of
Sharon, 1912, 8 R. G. 479, 491.
Relation between investment and growth of business.
14. In determining the reasonableness of rates careful inquiries
should be directed to determine the relation between the investment line
and the growth of business line at the particular period or. year upon
which the determination of the cost of service and, therefore, the rates are
to be determined. City of Beloit v. Beloit W. G. & El. Co., 1911, 7 R. G.
187, 289-290.
VIII. REASONABLENESS OP RATES IN PARTICULAR GASES.
Adjustment or revision of rates.
15. Petition for adjustment or revision of rates. Lothrop v. Village of
Sharon, 1912, 8 R. G. 479; City of Green Bay v. Green Bay G. & El. Co.,
1913, 12 R. G 324.
Excessive rates.
16. Investigation of alleged excessive rates. City of Ripon v. Ripon
Li. & W. Co., 1910, 5 R. G. 1; City of Racine v. Racine Gas Lt. Co., 1911,
6 R. G. 228; In re Madison G. & El. Co., 1911, 7 R. G. 152; City of Neenah
V. Wis. Tr. Lt. H. & P. Co., 1911, 7 R. G. 477; 8 R. G. 251; Meyer et al. v.
Sheboygan G. Lt. Co., 1912, 9 R. G. 439; 1913, 11 R. G. 309; City of Mil-
waukee V. Milwaukee G. Lt. Co., 1913, 12 R. G. 441; City of Waukesha v.
Waukesha G. & El. Co., 1913, 13 R. G. 100; Yanko et al. v. Portage Ameri-
can Gas Co., 1913, 13 R. G. 136; In re Madison G. & El. Co., 1913, 13 R. G.
259.
Excessive and discriminatory rates.
17. Investigation of alleged excessive and discriminatory rates.
State Journal Prig. Co. et al. v. Madison Gas & El. Co., 1910, 4 R. G. 501.
Cunningham et al. v. Chippewa Falls W. Wks. Sc Ltg. Co., 1910, 5 R. G.
302; City of Beloit v. Beloit W. G. <Sc El. Co., 1911, 7 R. G. 187; Superior
Comm'l Club et al. v. Superior W. Lt. <Sc P. Co., 1912, 10 R. G. 704; Jones
et al. V. Berlin Public Service Co., 1914, 15 R. G. 121.
Optional rates.
18. Investigation of proposed optional rate. In re Appl. Green Bay
Gas & El. Co., 1910, 5 R. G. 101.
266 Rates-Gas. — Reconnection charge
IX. RECONNECTION CHARGE.
Establishment of.
19. Charges for reconnection of gas service established. State Journal
Prtg. Co. et al. v. Madison G. <fe EL Co., 1910, 4 R. C. 501; City of Racine
V. Racine G. Lt. Co., 1911, 6 R. C. 228: City of Beloit v. Beloit W. G. <Sc EL
Co., 1911, 7 R. C. 187; City of Neenah v. Wis. Tr. Lt. H. Sz P. Co., 1911,
7 R. C. 477; Lothrop v. Village of Sharon, 1912, 8 R. C. 479; City of Green
Bay V. Green Bay Gas & EL Co., 1913, 12 R. C. 324; City of Waukesha v.
Waukesha G. <Sc EL Co., 1913, 13 R. C. 100; In re AppL Manitowoc Gas
Co., 1913, 13 R. C. 325.
X. SERVICE CHARGES.
Establishment of.
20. Service charges for gas service established. In re AppL Manito-
woc Gas Co., 1908, 3 R. C. 163; City of Ripon v. Ripon Lt. Sc W. Co., 1910,
5 R. C. 1.
XI. STREET LIGHTING RATES.
Establishment of.
21. Rates for gas street lighting service established. Yanko et at. v.
Portage American Gas Co., 1913, 13 R. C. 36.
RATES— HEATING.
Formula for computing radiation.
1. Upon investigating the problem of determining the required ra-
diation, it is found that eminent authorities on the subject advance dif-
ferent formulae, but that they seem to lead for the most part to about the
same result. The most rational formulae take into consideration such
factors as the influence of the volume of air to be heated, the frequency at
which the air is displaced or renewed, the difference in room and outdoor
temperature and the difference in room and radiator temperature. Em-
perical formulae less complicated than this have been devised by which
the required radiation can be approximated. Jones et al. v. Berlin Public
Service Co., 1914, 15 R. C. 121, 142.
Reasonableness of advance in rates in particular cases.
2. The question of reasonableness of advance in rates was passed
upon. In re AppL La Crosse Gas Sc EL Co., 1911, 8 R. C. 138.
Reasonableness of rates in particular cases.
3. The question of reasonableness of rates was passed upon in the
following cases: In re Rates Milwaukee Central Heating Co. et at., 1908,
2 R. C. 302; City of Waukesha v. Waukesha G. & EL Co., 1913, 13 R. C.
100; Jones et aL v. Berlin Public Service Co., 1914, 15 R. C. 121.
Rates -Inter urban. — Reasonablen. of adv. in parfic. cases 267
Reconnection charge.
4. The charge for reconnection of heating service for the same con-
sumer on the same premises shall be $5.00. Jones et al. v. Berlin Public
Service Co., 1914, 15 R. C. 121, 151.
RATES— INTERURBAN.
Discrimination in interurban rates, see Discrimination, 53-61, 64.
I. DISTANCE BASIS FOR FARES.
II. MAKING RATES— ELEMENTS CONSIDERED.
III. REASONABLENESS OF ADVANCE IN RATES IN PARTICULAR
CASES.
IV. REASONABLENESS OF RATES IN PARTICULAR CASES
V. TWO-CENT FARE LAW.
VI. ZONE SYSTEM RATES.
I. DISTANCE BASIS FOR FARES.
Reasonableness of.
1. It is deemed that a basic rate of 2 cts. per passenger mile with a
flat fare for the terminals and sub-terminals will best meet the require-
ments of the interurban service in the instant case. In re Milw. Suburban
& Interurban Ry. Rates, 1914, 13 R. G. 475, 488.
II. MAKING RATES— ELEMENTS GONSIDERED.^
Development of business. •
2. When the conditions prevailing on the interurban system as in-
dicated by the passenger density per car-mile are considered it seems best
to place the rate at a figure lower than the cost of service would demand
so as to encourage the passenger density to increase sufficiently to bring
the revenues to the point where they will bring an adequate return above
all expenses. In re Milw. Suburban & Interurban Ry. Rates, 1914, 13 R. G.
475, 488-489.
Nature of transportation business.
3. The nature of the transportation business is such as to make
simplicity, uniformity and stability in rate schedules desirable. In re
Milw. Suburban <Sc Interurban Ry. Rates, 1914, 13 R. G. 475, 489-490.
III. REASONABLENESS OF ADVANGE IN RATES IN PAR-
TI GULAR GASES.
Advance over rate provided in franchise.
4. Petitioner authorized to charge a rate higher than the maximum
rate provided for in franchise. In re Appl. Manitowoc <Sc Northern Tr. Co.,
1910. 6 R. G. 395.
268 Rates-Interurban. — Reasonableness of in particular cases
IV. REASONABLENESS OF RATES IN PARTICULAR CASES.
Arrangement of fare zones.
5. Investigation of alleged discriminatory arrangement of fare zones.
Vosburg v. Wis. El Ry. Co., 1912, 8 R. C. 709.
Excessive rates.
6. Investigation of alleged excessive rates. Deakin et al. v. T. M. E.
R. & L. Co., 1912, 10 R. C. 306; Fullmer v. Wausau Street R. Co., 1914,
15 R. C. 246.
Excessive and discriminatory rates.
7. Investigation of alleged excessive and discriminatory rates. Lamb
V. Eastern Wis. i?. & L/. Co., 1911, 6 R. C. 473; Schicker v. Rockford & I.
R. Co., 1911, 6 R. C. 695; Chromaster v. M. N. Ry. Co., 1912, 8 R. C. 734.
Uniform tariffs.
8. Application asking Commission to prescribe uniform tariffs or
schedules for suburban and interurban transportation. In re Milw.
Suburban & Interurban Ry. Rates, 1914, 13 R. C. 475.
"V. TWO-CENT FARE LAW.
Application of.
9. Interurban companies do not come within the provisions of the
Two-Cent Fare Law of this state so as to make a rate of more than 2 cts.
per mile unlawful. Lamb v. Eastern Wis. R. cfc Lt. Co., 1911, 6 R. C. 473.
VI. ZONE SYSTEM RATES.
Five-cent zones.
10. The so-called five-cent zone system of suburban and interurban
rates in use on many interurban electric railways is unscientific and in-
equitable because of the unequal zone distances used, the concessions
made to favored localities and favored classes of passengers at the expense
of other localities and other classes of passengers and the consequent
shifting of costs, in the form of excessive rates, onto patrons in the locali-
ties or classes discriminated against. In the instant case the one-way
fares charged for different trips over the suburban and interurban lines
of the two companies vary widely when compared on a passenger-mile
basis. This discrimination has given rise to other discriminations such as
those involved in the granting of overlapping zones and special and round-
trip rates to favored points. In re Milw. Suburban & Interurban R. Rates,
1914, 13 R. C. 475, 482-484.
Overlapping zones.
11. Where an interurban station is only a short distance from the
next zone point it might be practicable to establish overlapping zones,
and permit the traveler to go to the zone point which would give him the
longer ride; but in the case of a station half-way between two zones, it is
Rates-Railroad 269
difficult to find any way by which the intermediate point can be given
the same benefit as a point half a zone removed from it, without doing in-
justice to patrons on other parts of the line. Lamb v. Eastern Wis. Ry. Sc
L/. Co., 1911, 6 R. C. 473, 495-496.
Varying zone lengths.
12. The varying zone lengths are discriminatory not only to the peti-
tioner but to other patrons of the road and they should be revised and
placed on a basis equitable to all. It is obvious that any zone system must
lead to the payment of an extra fare by a passenger when boarding or
leaving the cars between two zone points, but this unavoidable result
should be minimized as much as possible. A more equitable plan would be
the adoption of increased zones with lower fares for each zone or of a
mileage system. Yoshmg v. Wis. El. Ry. Co., 1912, 8 R. G. 709, 717-718.
RATES— RAILROAD.
See also Demurrage Charges; Rebates or Concessions; Reparation;
Schedules or Tariffs; Switching Charges; Terminal
Charges; Transit Privil"eges; Weights.
Agreements with shippers relating to rates, see Contract of Shipment,
1-3; Schedules or Tariffs, 1-3.
Contracts relating to rates, see Contract of Shipment, 1-3.
Departure from published rate prohibited, see Schedules or Tariffs, 8-10.
Discrimination in railroad rates, see Discrimination, 49-53, 68-85.
Minimum carload weights, see Weights.
Mistake in quoting rates, see Contract of Shipment, 3; Schedules or
Tariffs, 9.
Publication of rates, see Schedules or Tariffs, 11-16.
Rate wars, power of Commission to prevent rate wars between competing
railroads, see Railroad Commission, 135.
Transit privileges, granting of privilege, see Transit Privileges.
I. IN GENERAL.
II. ADVANCE IN RATES.
III. BRANCH LINE RATES.
IV. CARLOAD RATES.
V. CLASS RATES.
VI. COMMODITY RATES.
VII. COMMUTATION RATES.
VIII. CONCENTRATION RATES.
IX. DEMURRAGE CHARGES.
X. DISTANCE BASIS FOR FARES.
XL DISTANCE RATES.
XII. EMERGENCY RATES.
XIII. FILING OF RATES.
XIV. FREE SERVICE.
XV. FREE OR REDUCED RATE SERVICE.
XVI. GROUP OR BLANKET RATES.
XVII. HOMESEEKERS* RATES.
XVIII. JOINT OR THROUGH RATES.
XIX. LOCAL RATES.
XX. LOWEST RATE APPLICABLE.
270 Rates-Railroad. — In general
— — . — ■ ■ • — ... - - ■■ ■■ .. .. . .1 ■— .,. ■ ■■ I , - ,. , .. _^
XXI. MAKING RATES— ELEMENTS CONSIDERED.
XXII. MAKING RATES-GRADUATION OF RATES.
XXIII. MANUFACTURES' RATES.
XXIV. MILLING IN TRANSIT RATES.
XXV. MINIMUM CHARGE ON PACKAGE FREIGHT.
XXVI. NESTED,
XXVII. PAYMENT OF RATES.
XXVIIL PROPORTIONAL RATES.
XXIX. PUBLISHED RATE.
XXX. REASONABLENESS OF RATES.
XXXI. REASONABLENESS OF RATES— MATTERS CONSIDERED
IN DETERMINING REASONABLENESS.
XXXII. REASONABLENESS OF RATES IN PARTICULAR CASES.
XXXIII. REDUCTION IN RATES.
XXXIV. RELATION OF RATES.
^ XXXV. SPECIAL SERVICE RATES.
XXXVI SWITCHING RATES.
XXXVII. TERMINAL CHARGE.
XXXVIII. TRAINLOAD RATES.
I. IN GENERAL^
Ante-dated tariff, legality of.
1. The ante-dating of the new tariff did not affect the rights of the
parties, and it had the same force and effect as if dated upon the day of its
issue. Menasha Wooden Ware Co. v. W. C. R. Co., 1906, 1 R. C. 108, 117.
Necessity of filing rates with the Railroad Commission.
2. All rates in force in April 1, 1905, should be filed with the Com-
mission regardless of whether they had been raised, lowered or discon-
tinued subsequent to that time, and under this provision it was the duty
of the Wisconsin Central Railway Co. to file the rates then in force affect-
ing the Menasha Wooden Ware Co. shipments. If any new rates or any
changes in the rates in force on April 1 were made between that time and
the date of the passage and publication of the law, such new rates or
changes should also be filed with the Commission. Menasha Wooden Ware
Co. V. W. C. R. Co., 1906, 1 R. C. 108, 112.
Power of state to regulate rates.
3. If the maximum rates are too high in the judgment of the legisla-
ture, it may lower them, provided it does not make them unreasonably
low as that term is understood in the law; but it cannot enact a law making
maximum rates, and then proceed to make exceptions to it in favor of
such persons or classes as in the legislative judgment or caprice may
seem proper. (Lake Shore & Michigan Southern R. Co., 1898, 173 U. S.
684.) Lieberman v. C. M. <Sc St. P. R. Co., 1909, 3 R. C. 330, 333-334.
4. A railway company cannot be required to accept a less rate than
the maximum rate prescribed by statute, unless it voluntarily publishes a
lower rate. Lieberman v. C. M. & St. P. R. Co., 1909, 3 R. C. 330, 333.
Questions pertaining to rates must be treated broadly and prac-
tically.
5. The fact that advances in rates which were complained of in a
particular case were general within the state should not be permitted to
Rates-Railroad. — Branch line rates 271
prevent the lowering of the particular rates complained of, if such action
is warranted on such other grounds as would otherwise be accepted as
good reasons for the reductions. To refuse a reduction of rates at some one
point even though it may tend to disturb the situation at other points
where industries of the same kind are located, would simply mean that no
change in rates, no matter how necessary, could be made except upon
investigations comprehensive enough to cover all rates directly or indirectly
affected by such changes. If this view were consistently taken in cases of
this kind, regulation might be found to be so inelastic as to subserve no
practical purpose, and so out of line with public policy as to be directly
harmful. Wis. Box Co. et al. v. C. M. <k St. P. R. Co. et al., 1903, 3 R. G.
605, 619.
Rates to be reasonable and just.
6. Common carriers are ordinarily entitled to rates that are high
enough to cover operating expenses, including reasonable returns upon a
fair value of the property used and useful in the services they render.
Parfreij v. C. M. & Si. P. R. Co. et al., 1910, 5 R. G. 551, 553; Wis. Pulp
<^ Paper Mfrs. v. C. & N. W. R. Co. et al., 1910, 6 R. G. 436, 455.
7. No rates should be so low that they do not cover their fair share of
operating expenses, including something in the way of net earnings. Wis.
Pulp & Paper Mfrs. v. C. & N. W. R. Co. et al., 1910, 6 R. G. 436, 455.
II. ADVANGE IN RATES.
Effect of advance on commercial conditions.
8. Advances in freight rates, when not justified by the cost of transpor-
tation or by commercial conditions, are apt to have serious effects upon the
business world. This is particularly true when they affect low grade and
hea\'y raw materials. They should, therefore, not be resorted to unless
it is reasonably certain that the situation is such as to warrant the change.
Wis. Box Co. et al. v. C. M. Sc St. P. R. Co. et al., 1909, 3 R. G. 605, 618.
Methods of advance.
9. Freight rates, for the most part, rest upon other than competitive
forces and can therefore, within certain broad limits, be advanced by ar-
bitrary methods. Wis. Box Co. et al. p. C. M. <fc St. P. R. Co. et al, 1909,
3 R. G. 605, 618.
Notice of advance.
10. As a rule freight charges should not be advanced except when
those immediately affected have been properly notified of the change, in
order that they may be prepared for it. Cochrane Co. v. C. M. & St. ■
P. R. Co., 1908, 3 R. G. 1, 20.
III. BRANGH LINE RATES.
Elimination of inequalities.
11. The cost per unit of traffic is wtvy much greater where the traffic
is light than where it is heavy. Rates based upon cost would therefore be
272 Rates-Railroad. — Branch line rates
higher on branch lines than on the main Hnes. Ordinarily, however, it is
to the best interest of all concerned that such inequalities should be elim-
inated and that the rates should be based on the conditions for the line
as a whole. Ringle et al. v. C. M. Sc St. P. R. Co. et aL. 1911, 7 R. G. 598,
605.
IV. CARLOAD RATES.
In general.
12. Carload traffic is relatively much less costly to handle than less
than carload trafTic. For this there are many reasons: in the first place the
carload loading is relatively heavy and this fact in turn materially reduces
the proportion of dead weight to the pay weight that must be transported;
it is also loaded and unloaded by the shippers and involves much less in
the way of station, office and other services. National Distilling Co. v.
C. & N. W. R. Co. et al., 1913, 11 R. C. 424, 428; In re Rates on Agricul-
tural Implements, 1913, 11 R. C. 508, 531.'
*'Jinimy" cars.
13. By reason of testimony inadvertently given at a previous hear-
ing, the order of the Commission, dated July 31, 1907, 1 R. C. 831,
prescribed rates for the transportation of "jimmy" cars; which testi-
mony subsequently given proved to be too high; and therefore the respond-
ent is ordered to charge for the transportation of "jimmy" cars, loaded,
a rate of $1.75 for distances of eight miles or less and $2.25 for distances
over eight miles. Streveler v. Marathon County R. Co., 1907, 2 R. C. 64, 66.
Mixed carload rates.
14. Carload mixture rules tend to increase the proportion of the car-
load traffic as well as the loading per car. They alsd operate as offsets to
high minimum weight requirements and the great differences between
carload and less than carload rates. In re Rates on Agricultural Imple-
ments, 1913, 11 R. C. 508, 533.
V. CLASS RATES.
Nature of.
15. Class rates are usually the highest rates in effect. They are so
high, in fact, that the heavier and cheaper commodities can seldom be
moved thereon, and this is very largely the reason why commodity rates
have been put into effect. Fergoi v. C. Sc N. W. R. Co., 1909, 4 R. C.
248, 254.
VL COMMODITY RATES.
In generalr
16. The effect of special and local conditions at various points enters
more or less strongly in the fixing of commodity rates. Ringle et al. v.
C. M. & St. P. R. Co. et al., 1911, 7 R. C. 598, 600-601.
17. The carriers may make commodity rates for the shipment of the
building material and machinery in question and ship the same thereunder.
A lower rate may legally be made to the manufacturer of such commod-
Rates-Railroad. — Commutation rates 273
ities than to a dealer therein, the conditions and circumstances under
which the two Icinds of shipments are made being dissimilar. In re Rates
on Construction Material for Mfg. Plants, 1906, 1 R. C. 210, 222.
18. Where a given rate under consideration is not complained of as
unreasonable, there can be no justification for advancing some other rate
merely to establish a difference in the two rates on the basis of the differ-
ing values of the commodities carried. Greengo v. C. M. & St. P. R. Co.,
1914, 15 R. C. 532, 533.
Adjustment to conditions.
19. There is no contradiction in fixing rates which are considered to
be reasonable as distance rates, and yet leaving lower commodity rates in
effect for points at which special conditions may make such rates reason-
able. Ringle et al. v. C. M. & St. P. R. Co. ef al, 1911, 7 R. G. 598, 600.
High grade commodities.
,20. Articles of high value should be charged relatively higher rates
than articles of low value. Wis. Pulp Sc Paper Mfrs. v.C. & N. W. R. Co.
et al., 1910, 6 R. C. 436, 455.
Loiv grade commodities.
21. It is better for both carriers and shippers that low grade freight
should be carried at rates which will contribute but little in the way of
return upon the investment, than that the traffic should be lost altogether.
Waukesha Lime and Stone Co. v. C. M. & St. P. R. Co. et al., 1912, 9 R. C.
87, 96; Schwoegler & Kelly v. C. M. & St. P. R. Co., 1910, 5 R. C. 287, 289;
Wis. Pulp & Paper Mfrs. u. C. & N. W. R. Co. et al., 1910, 6 R. C. 436,
455-456; Pulp & Paper Mfrs. Traffic Assn. v. C. <Sc N. W. R. Co. et al.,
1913, 11 R. G. 365, 390.
Reason for putting into effect.
22. Class rates are so high, in fact, that the heavier and cheaper
commodities can seldom be moved thereon, and this is very largely the
reason why commodity rates have been put into effect. Fergot v. C. Sc
N. W. R. Co., 1909, 4 R. G. 248, 254.
Specific commodity rates.
23. Specific commodity rates, as a rule, are based on or made to
meet special traffic conditions which are not met by general distance class
or commodity rates. These rates are lower, in practically all cases, than
general distance tariff rates. Ringle et al. v. C. M. & St. P. R. Co. et at.,
1911, 7 R. G. 170, 175.
VII. GOMMUTATION RATES.
Granting of commutation fates.
24. Obviously there must be some reasonable basis upon which the
granting of commutation rates must be determined, or otherwise the
general traveling public would be burdened with a part of the cost of
carrying the favored classes or individuals. Lieberman v. C. M. & St.
P. R. Co., 1909, 3 R. G. 330, 335.
274 Rates-Railroad. — Commutation rates
Must be offered impartially. *
25. If a company voluntarily establishes a commutation rate between
any points on its road, it must be accorded under the same circumstances
and upon the same conditions to all alike who may desire to avail them-
selves of it. Lieberman v. C. M. & St. P. R. Co., 1909, 3 R. C. 330, 334.
VIII. CONCENTRATION RATES.
In general.
26. The concentration system was instituted in Wisconsin about
fifteen years ago. Its general introduction, however, appears to be of
much more recent origin. The exact circumstances under which the
system arose were not developed during the hearings, nor have we been
able to secure definite information from other sources. As the term
"concentration" suggests, the system involves the collecting or gathering
of cheese at some point or points centrally located with reference to the
cheese producing and marketing areas. At such central or concentration
points large quantities of cheese are stored in warehouses to be sold and
shipped at the proper turn of the market. So. Wis. CheesemerCs Protective
Assn. V. Ry. Cos., 1906, 1 R. C. 143, 146; Kraft & Bros. Co. et at. v. M. P.
& N. R. Co. et al., 1914, 15 R. C. 217, 219. .
27. There is no inconsistency in the establishment by the carrier of
a different and lower basis of rates where the product is to be reshipped
over the same line than where no further movement is intended. Mari-
nette-Green Bay Mfg. Co. V. C. M. & St. P. R. Co., 1912, 11 R. C. 133, 135.
28. It is not to be understood that every carrier should be required
to permit concentration shipments to leave its line and trust to the in-
tegrity and solvency of a more or less distant or unknown shipper on a
foreign railroad line for the return of the commodity on the out-movement.
Borden Co. v. L. C. & S. E. R. Co. et al., 1913, 11 R. C. 439, 443, 444.
Conditions under which granted.
29. The concentration rate is not an independent rate of itself. It
does not appear to be often granted, except when the concentration rate
to the concentrating point, plus the rate from the concentrating point to
the market is sufficiently high to constitute adequate returns for all the
services of the transportation that are covered by these rates. Cochrane
Co. V. C. M. Sc St. P. R. Co., 1908, 3 R. C. 1, 4; Webb Produce Co. v.
C. & N. W. R. Co., 1908, 3 R. C. 32, 35-36; Wis. Box Co. et al. v. C. M.
& St. P. R. Co. et al, 1909, 3. R. C. 605, 611; Fergot v. C. & N. W. R. Co.,
1909, 4 R. C. 248, 253; Arpin Hardwood Lbr. Co. v. C. St. P. M. Sc 0. R. Co.,
1910, 5 R. C. 441, 446.
Distinguished from local rates.
30. It does not seem that a concentration rate is a local rate, nor
that it can fairly be made the basis for any other than concentration
rates. One of the attributes of a local rate is, that it is independent of
itself; that it normally constitutes a reasonable compensation for the
services covered by it; and that it has no connection with any other
rate or service. Concentration rates do not meet any of these, require-
ments. Cochrane Co. v. C. M. Sc St. P. R. Co., 1908, 3 R. C. 1, 30.
Rates-Railroad. — Concentration rates 275
Establishment of concentration rates.
31. Concentration rates on butter established: Cochrane Co. v.
C. M. & St. P. R. Co., 1908, 3 R. G. 1; Webb Produce Co. v. C. & N. \V.
R. Co., 1908, 3 R. G. 32; Wing & Geits v. C. St. P. M. & 0. R. Co., 1911,
6 R. G. 625.
32. Goncentration rales on eggs established: Cochrane Co. v. C. M.
<Sc St. P. R. Co., 1908, 3 R. G. 1; Webb Produce Co. v. C. & N. W. R. Co.,
1908, 3 R. G. 32: Stolte, Dangel Sc Foss Co. v. C. & N. W. R.' Co., 1909,
3 R. G. 335; Webb Produce Co. v. C. & N. W. R. Co., 1909, 3 R. G. 338;
Wing & Getts v. C. St. P. M. & 0. R. Co., 1911, 6 R. G. 625.
33. Goncentration rates on cheese estabhshed: So. Wis. Cheesemen's
Protective Assn. v. Rij. Cos., 1906, 1 R. G. 143.
34. Goncentration rates on cucumbers and onions estabhshed:
Alart & McQuire v. G. B. <Sc W. R. Co., 1908, 2 R. G. 340.
35. Goncentration rates on logs established: Arpin Hardwood Lbr.
Co. V. C. St. P. M. Sz 0. R. Co., 1910, 5 R. G. 441.
36. Goncentration rates on box lumber established: Wisconsin Box
Co. et at. V. C. M. <k St. P. R. Co. et at., 1909, 3 R. G. 605.
37. Goncentration rates on poles and posts established: Torrey
Cedar Co. v. C. & N. W. R. Co., 1912, 10 R. G. 461.
38. Goncentration rates on tobacco established: Borden Co. v.
L. C. & S. E. R. Co. et al., 1913, 11 R. G. 439.
Legality of.
39. Goncentration rates or transit privileges, such as those in question
here, are also provided for by and come within the laws. The legislature,
in enacting these laws, evidently recognized the fact that the rate schedules
for this state were adjusted upon a basis that made concentration rates,
on many of the leading commodities, absolutely necessary, and that such
rates can not be equitably or justly withdrawn without being accompanied
by far reaching rearrangements of the present rate schedules. Cochrane Co.
V. C. M. & St. P. R. Co., 1908, 3 R. G. 1, 4; Pulp & Paper Mfrs. Traffic
Assn. V. C. <Sc N. W. R. Co. et at., 1913, 11 R. G. 365, 387.
Nature of.
40. A concentration rate is not an independent rate. It is a sort of a
transit rate that is only granted on certain commodities in order that they
may be stopped in transit for the purpose of sorting, packing, cleaning,
re-manufacture, etc., and when the products thus obtained from the
original commodities are shipped to the markets over the same line of
road. Anwrican Cigar Co. v. G. B. & W. R. Co. et al., 1908, 2 R. G. 807,
814; Cochrane Co. v. C. M. & St. P. R. Co., 1908, 3 R. G. 1, 3-4; Webb
Produce Co. v. C. Sc N. W. R. Co., 1908, 3 R. G. 32, 35; Fergot v. C. Sc
N. W. R. Co., 1909, 4 R. G. 248, 253.
Necessity for frequent adjustment.
41. When rate arrangements of this kind are so adjusted as not to
result in unjust discriminations to the public, they are perhaps not open
to serious objections on the ground of pubhc policy. It is conceivable,
h^iwever, that under this basis of rate making, conditions might be fre-
276 Rates-Railroad. — Concentration rates
quently met with under which an absolutely equitable treatment of all
shippers would require frequent changes and readjustments of the rates
on both the raw material and the products obtained therefrom. Arpin
Hardwood Lbr. Co. v. C. St. P. M. & 0. R. Co., 1910, 5 R. C. 441, 446.
IX. DEMURRAGE CHARGES.
Allowance for delays.
42. The demurrage rules make no exception for cases of delay
caused by floods. Both petitioner and respondent are bound by these
rules until challenged and found by the Commission to be unreasonable.
Paine Lbr. Co. Ltd. v. C. & N. \V. R. Co., 1914, 13 R. C. 633, 634.
43. It would seem advisable for the railway companies to amend
the demurrage rules to make allowance for delays in unloading cars which
are occasioned, as in the instant case, by the failure of the railway company
to provide promised track facilities within the time agreed upon with
shippers. Greiling Bros. Co. v. C. M. Sz St. P. R. Co., 1914, 14 R. C.
449,452.
44. It is recommended that all lines in Wisconsin who are members
of the Wisconsin Demurrage Bureau put into effect a rule through which,
under the conditions stated, additional free time allowance will be made
for delay due to infrequent mail service or prohibitive conditions brought
about by the weather, Albright et al. v. C. St. P. M. 6c 0. R. Co., 1914,
14 R. C. 763.
Free storage period.
45. It is recommended that all companies operating railroads in
Wisconsin who are members of the Wisconsin Demurrage Bureau, im-
mediately publish and put into effect a reasonable rule to allow additional
free storage to patrons in proportion to the distance over which they are
obliged to haul freight from railway stations. Buckman v. C. & N. W.
R. Co., 1914, 15 R. C. 405.
X. DISTANCE BASIS FOR FARES.
Fares to be based on distance.
46. The present practice of the W. C. R. Co. of charging passengers
who are destined to Quarry the full passenger rate to the first station
beyond is unreasonable and unjust. It is also unreasonable and unjust
to charge passengers who board a train at Quarry the full rate from the
first station beyond Quarry in the direction opposite from that in which
the passenger is traveling. Passengers destined to or coming from
Quarry should be required to pay fares from or to Quarry, neither more
nor less, and not from or to Coffins and Valders. Krucger v. W. C. R. Co.,
1906. 1 R. C. 285, 290, 291.
XI. DISTANCE RATES.
Unloading points within a city.
47. It would seem fair to designate the station of Milwaukee, as
named in the distance tables of the respondent companies, as the point
Rates-Railroad. — Free or reduced rate service 277
to which all rates for hauls terminating within the city limits of Milwaukee
should be computed and it is ordered that in the application of the tariff
upon shipments to points within the limits of the city of Milwaukee, the
rates be governed by the distances from the points of origin to the station
of Milwaukee as named in the respondents' tables of distances. Wauke-
sha Lime & Stone Co. v. C. M. & St. P. R. Co. ef al., 1912, 9 R. C. 347, 352.
XII. EMERGENCY RATES.
Power of Commission to establish.
48. Under sec. 1797-28 of the Statutes-the Commission is empowered
to authorize the estabhshment of emergency rates that are reasonable
under the circumstances. Elmore-Benjamin Coal Co. v. C. <Sc N. W. R.
Co., 1912, 9 R. C. 396, 399.
XIII. FILII^iG OF RATES.
Duty of shipper to ascertain that rate is filed before making ship-
ment.
49. It is the duty of shipper to ascertain that the rate is filed. Menasha
Wooden Ware Co. v. W. C. R. Co., 1908, 2 R. C. 589, ^91; Beaver Dam Lbr.
Co. V. C. St. P. M. & 0. R. Co., 1908, 2 R. C. 700, 701.
XIV. FREE SERVICE.
When unlawful.
50. There is no escape from the conclusion that the present practice
of carr>'ing passengers free of charge is unlawful, and that the respondent
should be required by law to charge reasonable rates for the transporta-
tion of passengers, which rates must be published and filed in accordance
with the provisions of sec. 1797-^1 of the Statutes. Streveler u. Marathon
County R. Co., 1907, 1 R. C. 831, 840.
XV. FREE OR REDUCED RATE SERVICE.
When permissible.
51. The railway companies might, if they saw fit, contribute to the
association in question a sum equal to the usual charge for the haulage of
an advertising car, and this being so, there is nothing in the law to prevent
the railway compani^ from making a contribution, by way of service, to
the objects and purposes of the association, they being directly interested
in and benefited by the colonization of northern Wisconsin, and having
the right to contribute money or its equivalent for advertising purposes.
Under the provisions of sec. 1, ch. 13, laws passed at the 1905 special ses-
sion of the legislature, the occupants of such a car would be obliged to pay
the regular rate of fare when traveling between points within Wisconsin.
In re North Wisconsin Farmers Assn., 1906, 1 R. C. 175.
278 Rates-Railroad. — Group or blanket rates
XVI. GROUP OR BLANKET RATES.
In general.
52. The group system is more applicable to long than to short dis-
tance traffic. It is also of greater importance to manufacturing than to
agricultural industries. The former are usually located in certain well
defined centers, which may be readily classified by groups. The latter, on
the other hand, are more evenly distributed over the entire state and it is
difficult in many cases to find any natural basis for such grouping. There
are also many other differences between these two classes of industries
which affect the situation in this respect. In re Rates on Live Stocky 1907,
1 R. C. 778, 813.
53. Rates that are strictly based on the cost of the transportation
will vary with the length of the haul, though not in the same ratio. Owing
to commercial and other conditions, this fact is often disregarded in rate
making. This is the case when several stations in the same territory are
placed in the same group, and when some fixed commodity or traffic from
this group is given the same rate to any given market or markets. This
method of adjusting the rates, while not scientific, is sometimes justifiable,
especially when dealing with established conditions. Konrad Schreier Co.
V. C. M. & St. P. R. Co. et al., 1910, 5. R. C. 668, 672.
54. In cases such as the one under consideration where it would se-
riously disturb established conditions and injure productive capital, it is
quite likely that the best interests of the greatest number are subserved
by permitting existing group rate systems to remain in effect and by seeing
to it that each producer secures such advantages in rates in his immediate
neighborhood as those to which, because of his location, he is clearly and
equitably entitled under this system of rate making. Waukesha Lime &
Stone Co. v. C. M. & St. P. R. Co. et al., 1913, 11 R. C. 419, 422.
55. In a case involving Wisconsin points, Waukesha Lime <Sc Stone
Co. V. C. M. & St. P. R. Co., 1913, 26 I. G. G. R. 515, 518-519, the inter-
state commerce commission held that where the rate complained of was
not in itself unreasonable or exorbitant the Commission would not dis-
turb a group rate system merely because as high a rate was charged for a
short haul as for a longer haul. Central Wis. Traffic Bur. v. C. M. & St. P.
R. Co., 1914, 15 R. G. 521, 523.
Extent of rate zones.
56. While exact distances can not be regarded in the formation of
groups, an unusual departure from distance relations existing between
different localities in different groups must be predicated upon unusual
or extraordinary circumstances. G. W. Jones Lbr. Co. v. C. & N. W. R.
Co., 1907, 1 R. G. 520, 529.
57. From the point of view of scientific rates it is not easy to justify
rate zones that are as wide, or nearly so, as the distance between the zones.
From a commercial point of view, on the other hand, there may be con-
ditions under which such rate groupings may be warranted. Wis. Pulp Sc.
Paper Mfrs. v. C. & N. W. R. Co. et al., 1910, 6 R. G. 436, 453.
Rates-Railroad. — Joint or through rates 279
58. It cannot be denied that the grouping of stations for constructing
rates may, by including too many points, make the steps by which the
rates change so large as to afTect the competitive relation of producers in
adjacent communities. Connor Lbr.Sc Land Co. v. LaonaSz N. W.R. Co.
et al., 1913, 12 R. C. 761, 766.
Nature of.
59. The group system of rate making is convenient in the making up
of the tarifTs. In many instances, at least, it also enables rate makers to
equalize certain local inequalities by placing producers on the same rate
basis regardless of certain differences in the distance. In principle, the
group system of rate making differs but little from the ordinary distance
system. Brown Bros. Lbr. Co. v. M. St. P. & S. S. M. R. Co. et at., 1910,
5 R. C. 647, 651.
60. Group rates are sometimes established between one shipping
point and several consuming points, and at other times, again, between
one consuming point and several shipping points. The amount of terri-
tory that is included in each group varies with the conditions. Theo-
retically each group should include only places with common interests
located not too far apart. The group system of rate maldng also seems to
be better adapted for application between groups located a considerable
distance apart than between groups located close to each other. Wis.
Pulp & Paper Mfrs. v. C. & N. W. R. Co. et al., 1910, 6 R. C. 452-453.
61. In the case of specific commodities the rates are generally fixed
by groups rather than in direct relation to the distances covered, and the
rate to or. from the connecting line point is often the same as that to or
from the junction point, or else exceeds the junction point rate by no
more than the transfer cost or about a cent per cwt. Streveler et al. v.
Marathon Co. Ry. Co. et al., 1912, 10 R. C. 409, 417-418.
XVII. HOMESEEKERS' RATES.
Legality of.
62. The interpretation placed upon the Interstate Commerce Law
by the supreme court is for all practical purposes as much a part of the
law as the statute itself. Applying that interpretation to our law, it would
seem that where railways had been selling land seekers' tickets heretofore
at reduced rates, they are not in any way prohibited from seUing such
tickets at reduced rates at the present time under the provisions of our
law. In re Construction Ch. 362, Laws 1905, 1905, 1 R. G. 1, 14.
XVIII. JOINT OR THROUGH RATES.
In generaL
63. It has been decided many times by the Interstate Commerce
Commission and the courts that the sum of two reasonable locals does
not necessarily make a reasonable joint rate. For the purpose of deter-
mining the reasonableness of a joint rate recourse is usually had to what
the charge would be if the entire service were performed by one line of
road. This may not be the correct way to get" at it, but it is the usual
280 ' Rates-Railroad. — Joint or through rates
method adopted by the railroads themselves. Plumb & Nelson Co. v.
W. C. R. Co. et al., 1906, 1 R. C. 19, 23, 24; Manitowoc Malting Co. v.
W. C. R. Co. et al., 1906, 1 R. C. 69, 90; Minch v. C. & N. W. R. Co. et al.,
1907, 1 R. C. 599, 605.
64. Between any given points on two or more separate lines of rail-
road, joint rates are usually somewhat lower than the sum of the local
rates. The main reason for this probably is, that in the case of joint ship-
ments the terminal expenses are less than would be the case for local ship-
ments. Parfreij p. C. M. & St. P. R. Co. et al., 1910, 5 R. C. 551, 552;
Cochrane Co. v. C. M. & St. P. R. Co., 1908, 3 R. C. \; Ringle et al. v. C. M.
& St. P. R. Co. et al., 1911, 7 R. C. 170, 182-183; Gablowskij et al. v. C. &
N. W. R. Co. et al., 1912, 8 R. C. 544, 549: Konopatzke v. C. & N. W. R.
Co. et al., 1912, 8 R. C. 556, 563; Semrad Bros. & Pusch Brwg. Co. v. C. &
N. W. R. Co. et al., 1912, 9 R. C. 76, 79; Rhinelander Paper Co. v. M. St. P.
& S. S. M. R. Co. et al., 1912, 9 R. C. 127, 131-132: Pulp cfc Paper Mfrs.
Traffic Assn. v. C. Sz N. W. R. Co. et al., 1914, 13 R. C. 735, 737.
65. It hardly seems reasonable to base joint rates on any other than
the shortest available route. This position is supported by experience,
for where more than one route is open the instances where the rates are
based on the longest would seem to be the exceptions rather than the
rule. To base the rates on the shorter distance is also in line \^ith common
fairness and public interest. Any other course would, in most cases,
almost seem absurd. Brown Bros. Lbr. Co. v. M. St. P. <fc S. S. M. R. Co.
et al., 1910, 5 R. G. 647, 652, 660.
66. No joint rate can be put into effect without the consent of the
Commission and certainly under the circumstances the Commission
would not authorize a joint rate over a circuitous route where there is in
effect a joint rate over a direct route, when the former rate would have
the tendency of destroying the group rates over the direct route. Connor
Land & Lbr. Co. v. C. & N. W. R. Co., 1912, 8 R. C. 697, 698.
67. Discriminatory conditions are not the only ones justifying the
establishment of joint rates in a given case. Where the other circum-
stances, chief among which is the cost of the service to the carrier, make
the assessment of the sum of the local rates unreasonable, joint rates may
properly be established without reference to the existence or absence of
direct competition between shippers. Rhinelander Paper Co. v. M. St. P.
& S. S. M. R. Co. et al., 1912, 9 R. C. 127, 131.
Between carriers where there is no mechanical union of tracks.
68. In the case of carriers which are engaged almost exclusively in
transporting passengers and situated as the respondents are at Neenah,
physical connection of tracks is not an indispensable prerequisite to the
formation of business connections. The objection interposed to the juris-
diction of the Commission is overruled and the petition will be heard
upon its merits. City of Neenah v. Wis. tr. Lt. Ht. & P. Co. et al., 1910,
4. R C. 471, 476.
Cancellation of joint trainload rates.
69. Railroad ordered to discontinue and cancel its joint trainload rate
on pulp wood shipments from Butternut, Fifield, and Park Falls to Kim-
' Rates-Railroad. — Joint or through rates 281
berly, Wis. Rhinelandcr Paper Co. v. M. St. P. & S. S. M. R. Co., 1911,
8 R. C. 105. '
Division of.
70. Joint rates and the division of the same between the connecting
railroads are primarily a matter of voluntary agreement between the rail-
roads interested, but the Commission may apportion joint rates when
the connecting railways cannot agree upon a division of such rates. The
only grounds upon which the Commission may supervise contracts affect-
ing a division of joint rates is when an excessive division operates as a
rebate to a shipper by reason of his ownership of the railroad receiving
such exorbitant share of the joint rate. In re Appl. W.-G. B. R. Co., 1908,
2 R. C. 291.
71. Division of joint rates was ordered in: Bowar et al. v. C. <Sc S. C. R.
Co. et al., 1911, 6 R. C. 693; Streveler et al. v. Marathon County R. Co. et al.,
1913, 12 R. C. 170.
Elements of cost.
72. In cases of joint rates the cost of transportation is, of course,
increased by additional terminal expenses, due to the fact that the traffic
must be transferred from one line to another. Another element that enters
into the cost is the empty car mileage. Mineral PI. Zinc Co. v. C. Sc N.
W. R. Co. et al., 1911, 7 R. C. 583, 595-596; Streveler et al. v. Marathon
Co. R. Co. et at., 1912, 10 R. C. 409, 417.
Establishment of on — Commodities in general.
73. Joint rates established on commodities in general. Paxton Sc
Lightbodij Co. v. M. R. Co. et al., 1910, 5 R. C. 531; Bowar et al. v. C. Sc S.
C. R. Co. et al., 1911, 6 R. C. 693; Konopatzke v. C. & N. W. R. Co. et al.,
1912, 8 R. C. 556. '
Bolts.
74. Joint rates established on bolts. Streveler et al. v. Marathon
County R. Co. et al., 1912, 10 R. C. 409.
Brick and tile.
75. Joint rates established on brick and tile. Ringle et al. v. C. M. Sc
St. P. R. Co. et al., 1911, 7 R. C. 170; 598'; Wis. Clay Mfrs. Assn. v. C. M.
Sc St. P. R. Co. et at., 1914, 13 R. C. 756. '
Barley.
76. Joint rates established on barley. Manitowoc Malting Co. v.
W. C. R. Co. et al. 1906, 1 R. C. 69; Konrad Schreier Co. v. C. M. & St. P.
R. Co. et al., 1910. 5 R. C. 668.
Beer.
77. Joint rates established on beer. Semrad Bros. Sc Pusch Brwg. Co.
V. C. Sc N. W. R. Co. et al, 1912, 9 R. C. 76; 1913, 12 R. C. 236.
Cement.
78. Joint rates established on cement. Streveler et al. v. Marathon
County R. Co. et al., 1912, 10 R. C. 409.
282 Rates-Railroad. — Joint or through rates
Establishment of on — Cheese boxes.
79. Joint rates established on empty cheese boxes. Parfreij v. C. M.
& St. P. R. Co. etat., 1910, 4 R. G. 450; 5 R. G. 551.
Grain.
80. Joint rates estabhshed on grain. Minch v. C. & N. W. R. Co. et al.,
1907, 1 R. G. 599; Chamber of Comm. of Milw. v. C. B. <Sc Q. R. Co. et at.,
1909, 4 R. G. 80; Streveter et at. v. Marathon County R. Co. et at., 1912,
10 R. G. 409.
Hay.
81. Joint rates estabhshed on hay. Streveter et at. v. Marathon County
R. Co. et at., 1912, 10 R. G. 409.
Lime.
82. Joint rates estabhshed on hme. Waukesha Lime & Stone Co. v.
C. M. & St. P. R. Co. et at., 1913, 11 R. G. 419.
Limestone.
83. Joint rates estabhshed on hmestone. Waulcesha Lime Sc Stone
Co. V. C. M. 6c St. P. R. Co. et at., 1914, 13 R. C. 471.
Live stock.
84. Joint rates estabhshed on hve stock. In re Rates on Live Stock,
1907, 1 R. G. 778; Streveter et at. v. Marathon County R. Co. et at., 1912, 10
R. G. 409.
Logs.
85. Joint rates estabhshed on logs. Gabtowsky et at. v. C. & N. \V. R.
Co. et at., 1912, 8 R. G. 544; Streveter et at. v. Marathon County R. Co. et at.,
1912, 10 R. G. 409; Webster Mfg. Co. v. C. & N. W. R. Co. et at., 1914,
14 R. G. 703; John Week Lbr. Co. u. C. M. & St. P. R. Co. et at., 1914,
15 R. G. 53.
Lumber,
86. Joint rates established on lumber. Shawano Lbr. Co. v. C. Sc N.
W. R. Co., 1908, 2 R. G. 775; Wis. Retait Lbr. Dealers" Assn. v. C. <Sc N.
W. R.Co. et at., 1909, 3 R. G. 471, 589; Brown Bros. Lbr. Co. v. M. St.
P. <Sc S. S. M. R. Co. et at., 1910, 5 R. G. 647, 655; Heddles Lbr. Co. v. C.
M. & St. P. R.Co. et at., 1910, 5 R. G. 714; Mears-Stayton Lbr. Co. v.
W. & N. R. Co. et at., 1911, 8 R. G. 247; Streveter et at. v. Marathon County
R. Co. et at., 1912, 10 R. G. 409.
*
Peas and beans.
87. Joint rates established on peas and beans. John H. Atten Seed
Co. V. C. & N. W. R. Co. et at., 1915, 15 R. G. 641.
Potatoes.
88. Joint rates established on potatoes. Streveter et at. v. Marathon
County R. Co. et at., 1912, 10 R. G. 409.
Rates-Railroad. — Joint or through rates 283
Pulp.
89. Joint rates established on pulp. Rhinelander Paper Co. v. C.
M. & St. P. R. Co. etal.,1912,S R. C. 58; Flambeau Paper Co. v. C. M. &
St. P. R. Co. et al., 1913, 11 R. C. 699.
Sand and gravel.
90. Joint rates established on sand and gravel. Waupaca Sand &
Gravel Co. v. Waupaca G. B. R. Co. et al., 1914, 15 R. G. 482.
Sash, doors and blinds.
91. Joint rates established on sash, doors and blinds. Curtis <Sc Yale
Co. V. C. M. & St. P. R. Co. et al., 1911, 7 R. C. 41.
Scrap iron.
92. Joint rates established on scrap iron. Mayer v. C. Sz N. W. R.
Co.etal, 1911, 8 R. C. 328.
Stone.
93. Joint rates established on stone. Schwoegler Sc Kelly v. C. M. Sc
St. P. R. Co., 1910, 5 R. C. 287.
Tobacco.
94. Joint rates established on tobacco. American Cigar Co. v. G.
B. Sz W. R. Co. el al., 1908, 2 R. C. 807; Borden Co. v. L. C. & S. E. R.
Co.etal., 1913, 11 R. C. 439.
Wood (cord).
95. Joint rates established on cordwood. Harrison v. D. & W. R.
Co., 1908, 2 R. C. 801.
Wood (pulp).
96. Joint rates established on pulp wood. Rhinelander Paper Co. v.
M. St. P. Sc S. S. M. R. Co. et al., 1912, 9 R. C. 127; Streveler et al. v.
Marathon County R. Co. et al, 1912, 10 R. C. 409; Pulp & Paper Mfrs.
Traffic Assn. v. C. & N. W. R. Co. et al., 1913, 11 R. G. 365; 1914, 13 R. G.
735.
Zinc ore.
97. Joint rates established on zinc ore. Mineral Pt. Zinc Co. v.
C. iSc N. W. R. Co. et al., 1911, 7 R. G. 583.
Legality of.
98. Statutes requiring the establishment of joint rates have been
enacted in several states and have generally been upheld by the courts.
Under the laws of this state such rates may also be established by this
Gommission. Minch v. C. Sc N. W. R. Co. et al, 1907, 1 R. G. 599, 605;
City oJNeenah v. Wis. Tr. Lt. Ht. Sc P. Co., 1910, 4 R. G. 471, 473; Konrad
Schreier Co. v. C. M. Sc St. P. R. Co. et al, 1910, 5 R. G. 668, 670; Rhine-
lander Paper Co. v. M. St. P. Sc S. S. M. R. Co. et al, 1912, 9 R. G. 127, 130.
/
284 Rates-Railroad.- — Joint or through rates
Necessity for.
99. The refusal to grant joint rates to local stations, and where the
traffic is comparatively light, as well as on raw material destined to points
off the line, or where little or no traffic can be had from the commodities
into which it is manufactured, may be good policy from the point of view of
the traffic department, but it is not likely to always subserve the best
interests of the public. Such refusals often result in discriminations as
between both localities and persons. Minch v. C. Sc N. W. R. Co. et al.,
1907, 1 R. C. 599, 605.
On raw materials manufactured on originating line.
100. The carriers object to establishing joint rates on raw material
originating on their own lines and which can also be manufactured into
finished products at points on their own lines, in cases where such joint
rates may tend to reduce their traffic. With this position it is difficult to
quarrel, at least when it is not carried to a point where the pubhc interests
involved are greater than those of the carrier. For handling such traffic,
carriers are entitled to rates that will yield them returns that are fully
adequate as compensation for their services. But when assured of such
rates, it is their duty, under the circumstances, to grant joint rates and
traffic arrangements. Mineral Pt. Zinc Co. v. C. <& N. W. R. Co. et al.,
1911, 7 R. G. 583, 596.
101. The natural aversion of the railway companies to the movement
of raw materials off of their own lines must sometimes yield to the right
of the public to rates which are, under all the circumstances, reasonable.
Rhinelander Paper Co. v. M. St. P. <Sc S. S. M. R. Co. et al., 1912, 9 R. G.
127, 130.
When granted.
102. Whether joint rates should be granted or not, is often a matter
of the greatest importance when viewed from an economic point of view,
and for this reason does not entirely depend upon the position of the car-
riers in the matter. Whenever economic and commercial conditions are
such as to require such rates, and whenever the granting of such rates,
on the whole, is not at variance with the obligations or duties of the
carriers, they should be put into effect. Shawano Lbr. Co. v. C. & N. W.
R. Co., 1908, 2 R. G. 775, 779.
XIX. LOGAL RATES.
Attributes of.
103. One of the attributes of a local rate is, that it is independent of
itself; that it normally constitutes a reasonable compensation for the
services covered by it; and that it has no connection with any other rate
or service. Cochrane Co. v. C. AT. & St. P. R. Co., 1908, 3 R. G. 1, 30.
XX. LOWEST RATE APPLI GABLE.
Duty of carrier to apply lowest rate.
104. It is the duty of the railway company, in the absence of any
specific direction to the contrary, to route shipments over lines whereby
Rates-Railroad. — Making rates — elements considered 285
the freight charges will be least. Owen & Bros. Co. v. M. St. P. & S. S.
M. R. Co., 1912, 9 R. C. 43, 44.
105. The lowest rate in effect should have been used in computing
the charge. Bacon Sz Co. v. M. St. P. & S. S. M. R. Co., 1912, 9 R. C.
62, 63.
XXI. MAKING RATES— ELEMENTS CONSIDERED.
Ability of commodity to pay.
106. The ability of the commodity to pay is an element to be con-
sidered. In re Rates on Waste Lumber Products, 1906, 1 R. C. 291, 298;
In re Rates on Pulp Wood, 1908, 2 R. G. 168, 221.
Adequacy of service.
107. The question for decision is, not how cheap the carriers could
conduct the passenger business and still make a profit, but how cheaply
can this business be done in an adequate way. Buell v. C. M. Sc St. P.
R. Co., 1907, 1 R. G. 324, 500.
Average rate per ton-mile.
108. The average rate per ton per mile for the entire system can
hardly be a fair basis for the rates on sugar beets. This rate is simply
the average receipt per mile for each ton of freight transported. It
includes all kinds of freight and all sorts of loading for all distances.
Chippewa Sugar Co. et al. v. C. M. & St. P. R. Co. et at., 1906, 1 R. G.
258, 271.
Commercial conditions.
109. We do not mean to say that the commercial conditions of the
character described are not important and that they cannot or should
not be taken into consideration in making rates. Conditions are often
met with when they play so important a part, both from an economic
and sociological point of view, as to warrant all sorts of changes of this
character. In re Rates on Milk and Cream, 1908, 2 R. C. 450, 498.
Comparative data.
110. It has been repeatedly held that, in passing upon rate disputes,
the rates in effect for similar services on other lines in the same section
of the country are an element to which considerable weight should often
be accorded in the adjustment of rates. In re Rates on Cordwood, 1908,
2 R. C. 705, 707.
111. The comparative basis alone is not always a safe basis for
rate making, for while rates so made may be non-discriminatory as between
shippers, they may be higher than sufficient to yield reasonable returns
on the investment. Milwaukee-Waukesha Brwg. Co. v. C. Sz N. W. R. Co.,
1910, 5 R. C. 546, 549.
112. Comparisons with rates elsewhere in effect are of value, not as
determining what the rates in a given case should be, but as an indication
of the conditions which surround the industry as a whole. It need
hardly be pointed out that the financial and commercial situation of
286 Rates-Railroad. — Making rates — elements considered
almost every industry is largely affected by the cost of transporting its
products. Thus, while the cost of service is the element of most vital
importance, a comparison of existing rates with the rates under which
similar traffic actually moves in other regions is also of some value.
Ringle ei al. v. C. M. Sc St. P. R. Co. et al., 1911, 7 R. C. 598, 600.
113. The Commission will not undertake to determine the reasonable-
ness of rates by mere comparison with other existing rates. Locke v.
C.ScN. W. R. Co., 1913, 13 R. C. 366, 367.
114. The Commission has repeatedly declared that the comparative
basis alone is not always a safe one for rate making. Wausau Advn.
Assn. V. C. M. & St. P. R. Co., 1914, 13 R. C. 527, 530.
/ Competitive conditions.
115. We have regarded chiefly, although not exclusively, the risk
assumed by the carrier, the value of the commodity, the volume of the
traffic, competitive conditions, and the cost of the service. So. Wis.
Cheesemen's Protective Assn. v. Ry. Cos., 1906, 1 R. C. 143, 156.
116. Commodities, which are subject to competitive conditions,
cannot, as a rule, bear such rates as those in the distance tariffs. Nor are
they often, in the long run, obliged to do so. For when the roads find
that the traffic will not move under them, commodity rates, which are
more closely adjusted to prevailing commercial conditions, are generally
put into . effect. The distance tariffs are essentially non-competitive
tariffs, and the rates given therein can not often be used for competitive
business. Minch v. C. & N. W. R. Co. et at., 1907, 1 R. C. 599, 604.
117. Competition, both active and potential, affects the rates.
Nobte et al. v. C. St. P. M. Sc 0. R. Co., 1907, 1 R. C. 767, 770; Elbertson
V. e. St. p. M. Sc 0. R. Co., 1908, 2 R. C. 593, 598.
118. While there is no direct competition in this case it does not
follow that the relation of these two classes of producers may not be
affected by general competitive conditions. If, for instance, the state of
the markets and of the two industries are such that the profits in the
lumber is relatively greater than in the paper industry, it follows as a
matter of course that the former can afford to pay more for their raw
material and therefore occupy a more advantageous position in the market
for the same. In re Rates on Pulp Wood, 1908, 2 R. C. 168, 189.
119. Rates that have been in effect for some time are also Hkely to
have been the means of establishing business relations, particularly in
strictly competitive industries, that will be seriously interfered with
when such rates are increased. Commercial conditions of this character
are frequently among the elements that should receive consideration in
fixing rates of transportation. Milwaukee-Waukesha Brwg. Co. v. C. &
N. W. R. Co., 1910, 5 R. C. 546, 547.
120. The practice of charging lower rates to the larger terminals
than to intermediate points on the same line is, of course, quite general
and is justified on competitive grounds. Brown Bros. Lbr. Co. v. M. St.
P. & S. S. M. R. Co. et at., 1910, 5 R. C. 663, 664.
121. The most important element in the fixing of rates is the cost of
service, subject to modification by reason of commercial conditions,
such as the value of the article carried, the competitive situation of both
Rates-Railroad. — Making rates — elements considered 287
the producer and the carrier, etc. Ringle et al. v. C. M. & St. P. R. Co.
et al., 1911, 7 R. G. 598, 600.
122. The Commission will not undertake to adjust rates in order to
remove competitive disadvantages due to location. Locke v. C. & N.
W. R. Co., 1913, 13 R. C. 366, 367.
123. After the costs have been given due weight, one other matter
enters into the question of reasonableness of rates, namely, competitive
conditions. Not infrequently the regular rate of transportation would
entirely prevent commodities from moving and it may often be to the best
interests of the carriers and the community alike that these conditions
be taken into account in the final rate adjustment. Wausau Advancement
Assn. V. C. M. & St. P. R. Co., 1914, 13 R. C. 527, 530.
124. Competitive traffic cannot always be had at the regular rates.
Such traffic, however, should not be neglected for this reason. Mason-
Donaldson Lbr. Co. V. C. d: N. W. R. Co., 1915, 15 R. C. 575, 577.
Cost of service.
125. The most important single factor in the fixing of a rate of
transportation is the cost of service. To ascertain this cost per unit of
transportation for each class of service is a difficult matter. It involves
the assets and liabilities of the company, its earnings and operating
expenses, and the apportionment of the same between the dilTerent classes
of traffic, Buell v. C. M. & St. P. R. Co., 1907, 1 R. C. 324, 346; So. Wis.
Cheesemen' s Protective Assn. v. Rij. Cos., 1906, 1 R. C. 143, 156; In re
Rates on Waste Lbr. Products, 1906, 1 R. C. 291, 298; In re Rates on Live
Stock, 1907, 1 R. C. 778, 807; In re Rates on Pulp Wood, 1908, 2 R. C. 168,
227; In re Rates on Milk and Cream, 1908, 2 R. C. 450, 465; Elbertson v.
C. St. P. M. <k 0. R. Co., 1908, 2 R. C. 593, 598; Webb Produce Co. v.
C. & N. W. R. Co., 1908, 3 R. C. 32, 36; Paxton Sz Lightbody Co. v. M. R.
Co. et at., 1910, 5 R. C. 531, 542; Wis. Pulp Sc Paper Mfrs. v. C. Sc N.
W. R. Co. et al, 1910, 6 R. C. 436, 455-456; Mineral Pt. Zinc Co. v. C. &
N. W. R. Co. et al, 1911, 7 R. C. 583, 595-596; Ringle et al v. C. M. Sc
St. P. R. Co. et al, 1911, 7 R. C. 598, 600; Pulp Sc Paper Mfrs. Traffic
Assn. V. C. & N. W. R. Co. et al, 1913, 11 R. C. 365, 377; Waukesha
Lime & Stone Co. v. M. SL P. & S. S. M. R. Co. et al, 1914, 13 R. C.
471, 473; Wausau Advancement Assn. v. C. M. Sc St. P. R. Co., 1914,
13 R. C. 527, 530; In re C. M. Sc St. P. Switching Rates in Milwaukee,
1914, 14 R. C. 261, 270.
Empty car mileage.
126. The testimony indicated that the proportion of the empty
car mileage is very large in the live stock traffic. This is an important
feature. It causes a considerable increase in the cost of this traffic, and
should be given full consideration in the adjustment of the rates. In re
Rates on Live Stock, 1907, 1 R. C. 778, 798.
127. A relatively lower amount of empty car mileage means lower
cost because it means more effective use of the equipment or property
of the carrier. In re Rates on Pulp Wood, 1908, 2 R. C. 168, 221.
2SS Rates-Railroad. — Making rates— elements considered
Cost of service — Interest. •
128. In addition to general expenses, maintenance expenses, etc.,
certain other outlays, such as taxes and a fair income upon the invest-
ment, must also be taken into account. In re Passenger Rates M. St. P.
Sc S. S. M. R. Co., 1907, 1 R. G. 540, 581.
Maintenance.
129. In a general way it perhaps can be said that the operating
expenses should include the cost of operation, general expenses, and of
maintaining the property in such condition that its operating efficiency
at the end is at least as great as it was at the beginning of the year.
Anything less than this can hardly be considered sufficient. In re Pas-
senger Rates M. St. P. & S. S. M. R. Co., 1907, 1 R. G. 540, 550. •
Taxes.
130. In addition to general expenses, maintenance expenses, etc.,
certain other outlays, such as taxes and a fair income upon the investment,
must also be taken into account. In re Passenger Rates M. St. P. <Sc
6\S.M.i?. Co., 1907, 1 R. G. 540, 581. .
Terminal and movement expenses.
131. A rate is made up of two classes of expenses : the cost of handling
the freight at the stations or terminals, and the cost of moving the same
from one station, or terminal, to another. The terminal expenses are not
affected by the length of the haul. They amount to as much for a ton going
ten miles as for one going a hundred miles. The cost of hauling the freight
between the stations, on the other hand, varies with the length of the haul.
Chippewa Sugar Co. et at. v. C. M. & St. P. R. Co. et al., 1906, 1 R. G. 258,
271, 272.
132. The proper unit for the terminal expenses is the ton through
the loaded car. The proper unit for the movement expenses is the ton per
mile. Ringle et al. v. C. M. & St. P. R. Co. et al., 1911, 7 R. G. 170, 182.
133. In addition to general considerations of cost, a rate to be reason-
able should take into account any special conditions which may operate
to either increase or decrease the cost of handling above the average of
all traffic, such as the amount of terminal handling required, the kind of
equipment required, the regularity and amount of sifbh traffic, and many
other considerations. Wausau Advancement Assn. v. C. M. & St. P. R.
Co., 1914, 13 R. G. 527, 530.
134. A detailed physical valuation of the terminal properties and a
detailed study of transportation movements in the district were made;
the total freight expenses were apportioned among "Through," "In,"
"Out," and "Terminal" movements; and the costs of making the terminal
movements were analyzed. An ideal terminal tarifi" based on the cost
and on weight and distance is considered. In re C. M. S: St. P. Switching
Rates in Milwaukee, 1914, 14 R. G. 261, 265.
Distance.
135. As distance is one of the most important factors in rate making,
it is obvious that rates in which this factor has not received attention are
Rates-Railroad. — Making rates — elements considered 289
likely ta be out of line. National Distilling Co. v. C. & N. W. R. Co. et al.,
1913, 11 R. G. 424, 427.
Length of haul.
136. There are many elements that should be taken into account in
estabhshing the rates of transportation. The length of the haul is one of
these. It is obvious that, everything else being equal, the cost of the haul
must necessarily vary with the distance. The density of the traffic is also
important. There is, perhaps, no other single factor that has a greater
effect upon the cost per unit of transportation. Competition, both active
and potential, also affects the rates. Noble et al. v. C. St. P. M. 6c 0. R.
Co., 1907, 1 R. C. 767, 770.
137. In general it is true and in line with correct principles of rate
making that the rate per ton-mile for short hauls is higher than the
rate for long hauls. The reason for this is to be found in the fact that,
terminal expenses remaining constant, the total cost in the case of short
hauls must be borne by a smaller number of ton-miles, thus increasing
the cost per unit. Wausau Advancement Assn. v. C. M. & Si. P. R. Co.,
1914, 13 R. C. 527, 531.
Loading per car.
138. Heavier loading stands for lower cost because it reduces the
proportion of dead weight to pay weight. A relatively lower amount of
empty car mileage also means lower cost because it means more effective
use of the equipment or property of the carrier. I^ower value and higher
cost of production usually stand for reduced ability to meet charges. In
re Rates on Pulp Wood, 1908, 2 R. C. 168, 221.
139. The loading per car is an important element in determining the
cost per each unit of traffic for moving or transporting it between the
stations. Wis. Pulp Sz Paper Mfrs. v. C. <k N. W. R. Co. et al., 1910, 6
R. C. 436, 455-456.
Local conditions.
140. The effect of special and local conditions at various points enters
more or less strongly in the fixing of commodity rates. Ringle et al. v.
C. M. & St. P. R. Co. et al, 1911, 7 R. C. 598, 600-601.
Nature of transportation business.
141. The nature of the transportation business is such that the de-
mand for simplicity, uniformity and stability is necessarily controlling
because even a slight variation in basic rates would open the way to un-
certainty in the minds of the riding public and would result in personal and
local discrimination. In re Milw. Suburban <Sc Interurban Ry. Rates, 1914,
13 R. G. 475, 489-490.
Needs of shipper.
142. The needs of the shipper is a question that is frequently, and with
a great deal of justice, considered in fixing and adjusting rates. On this
point the testimony presented was not very exhaustive, but the petitioners
showed that they were exposed to sharp competition not only in the sale
10
290 Rates-Railroad.^— Making rates — elements considered
of the paper they produced but in the purchase of the logs or wood supply
for their mills. In re Rates oii Pulp Wood, 1908, 2 R. C. 168, 188; Elbertson
V. C. St. P. M. & 0. R. Co., 1908, 2 R. G. 593, 598.
Net earnings from intrastate traffic.
143. In determining whether an intrastate rate is reasonable or
otherwise, the net earnings which the carrier derives from its interstate
business cannot be considered. If the net earnings of the intrastate traffic
are not sufficient to warrant a reduction in the rate or rates complained of,
it is immaterial that the net earnings on the entire traffic, intrastate and
interstate, would be sufficient to justify a reduction. Buell v. C. M. Sc
Si. P. R. Co., 1907, 1 R. C. 324, 340-346.
Public policy with respect to prevention of monopoly of natural
resource.
144. It is against public policy to permit a railroad company to put
into effect rates which will operate to seclude large timber resources for
its sole benefit and exclude from sharing those resources other portions
of the state which have an equal need for them, for such action would lead
to monopoly of the most offensive sort. Pulp & Paper Mfrs. Traffic Assn.
V. C. Sz N. \V. R. Co. et al., 1914, 13 R. C. 735, 739.
Purpose for which article is intended.
145. From an economic point of view the argument in favor of allow-
ing different rates on the same commodities which are intended for differ-
ent purposes is a strong one and has been well put in the case of Hoover v.
Pennsylvania, 156 Pa. 220. In this case the court held in substance that
an agreement to charge a uniform rate on coal for consumption in the
operation of a manufacturing plant could not be complained of as unjust
discrimination against a mere dealer in coal, since such discrimination
was justifiable on the ground of public policy. In re Rates on Pulp Wood,
1908, 2 R. C. 168, 194.
Quality of service.
146. The kind or class of service that is furnished by the carriers is a
factor that should be taken into account in the adjustment of rates. As
passenger train or express service is more speedy and prompt and of higher
grade generally than freight service, it may justify higher rates of
transportation. In re Rates on Milk and Cream, 1908, 2 R. G. 450, 464.
Rate of return.
147. Ordinarily neither a legislature nor a commission created by it
can fix rates so low as to deprive the carrier of the right to earn its operat-
ing expenses and a fair return on the' reasonable value of its investment,
as such action would be violative of the XIV. amendment to the Gonstitu-
tion of the United States, and the validity of legislative-made rates, and
of those made by a commission duly authorized to make them, stand on
the same footing before the courts. Buell v. C. M. & St. P. R. Co., 1907,
1 R. G. 324, .337-346.
Rates-Railroad, — Making rates — elements considered 291
Relation between freight and passenger traffic.
148. Each branch of traffic should be self supporting. It is important
to the people of the state that low freight rates should prevail, and there
is no justification from an equitable or an economic standpoint in weighing
the freight charges with any portion of the burdens of the passenger
traffic, even if it could be done without violating the law. Buell v. C. M,
<Sc St. P. R. Co., 1907, 1 R. G. 324, 341-346.
Relation of interstate and intrastate traffic.
149. Generally speaking, the best system of rates is that under which
both the interstate antl intrastate traffic is made to stand on its own bot-
tom. Each should contribute its just proportion of the expenses and pro-
fits, except perhaps under extraordinary conditions. In re Rates on Live
Stock, 1907, 1 R. G. 778, 804.
Relation of rate to rates to intermediate points.
150. The respondent objected to the reduction of the rates in question
on the ground that their reduction would necessitate, a reduction in the
rates to intermediate points. If this view was consistently taken in all
cases of this kind, regulation might be found to be so inelastic as to sub-
serve no practical purpose, and so out of line with public policy as to be
directly harmful. Wisconsin Box Co. et al. v. C. M. Sc St. P. R. Co. et aL,
1909, 3 R. G. 605, 619; Wausau Advancement Assn. v. C. M. Sc St.
P. R. Co., 1914, 13 R. G. 527, 532-533.
Relation of weight to space.
151. The chief features in determining the proper classification of
an article are the space occupied for each one hundred pounds of the article
and the value per hundred pounds of the same. Medford Fruit Package
Co. V. W. C. R. Co. et al., 1906, 1 R. G. 44, 47.
152. The cost of transportation to the carriers is greatly affected by
the relation between the weight and the bulk or space required of the com-
modities transported. Gommodities that are light in proportion to their
bulk require relatively more space than heavier articles. The number of
tons that can be loaded into the car is, therefore, much less in the former
case than in the latter. In the former case the proportion of dead weight
to the pay freight is also much greater. Keogh Excelsior Mfg. Co. et al. v.
C. M. <Sc St. P. R. Co., 1908, 2 R. G. 717, 750.
Risk.
153. Risks are elements to be considered in making rates. In regular
class rates they are always taken into account. In the case of commodity
rates they may be of less importance but are not entirely disregarded. In
re Rates on Pulp Wood, 1908, 2 R. G. 168, 214; So. Wis. Cheesemen's
Protective Assn. v. Rij. Cos., 1906, 1 R. G. 143, 156; In re Rates on Waste
Lumber Products, 1906, 1 R. G. 291, 298; In re Rates on Milk and Cream,
1908, 2 R. G. 450, 465; Webb Produce Co. v. C. & N. W. R. Co., 1908,
3 R. G. 32, 36.
292 Rates-Railroad. — Making rates — elements considered
Space occupied by commodity.
154. The chief features in determining the proper classification of an
article are the space occupied for each one hundred pounds of the article
and the value per hundred pounds of the same. Medford Fruit Package
Co.v. W. C. R. Co. et aL, 1906, 1 R. C. 44, 47.
Special conditions.
155. There is no contradiction in fixing rates which are considered
to be reasonable as distance rates, and yet leaving lower commodity rates
in effect for points at which special conditions may make such rates reason-
able. Ringle et al. v. C. M. Sz St. P. R. Co. et a!., 1911, 7 R. C. 598, 600.
Traffic conditions.
156. Traffic considerations enter into the adjustment of rates at all
competitive points and have to be carefully weighed in the preparation of
rate schedules. While the general rule that a short haul included in a
longer haul in the same direction shall not bear a greater rate than the
long haul is unquestionably just and fair in a great majority of instances,
it was found necessary to violate this so-called long-and-short-haul
principle in several instances in order to make the application of a lower
rate possible at common points. In re Rates on Grain, 1906, 1 R. G.
124, 127.
157. The carriers get no revenue out of the freight that does not
move, so it has become a recognized principle in the making of railway
rates that they should be so adjusted that the traffic can move under
them. This, of course, does not mean that the carriers should haul
freight at an actual loss, but it does mean that where it is necessary to
haul freight at a low margin of profit in order to move it at all, that
rates should be made so that the traffic can move. In re Rates on Waste
Lumber Products, 1906, 1 R. C. 291, 295.
158. The volume of the traffic is an important element in rate making,
chiefly because of its effect upon the cost of transportation. The greater
the traffic, other things being equal, the lower the cost per unit for trans-
portation and the lower are the rates charged. In re Rates on Pulp
Wood, 1908, 2 R. C. 168, 221; So. Wis. Cheesemen's Protective Assn. v.
Ry. Cos., 1906, 1 R. C. 143, 156; Noble et al. v. C. St. P. M. & 0. R. Co.,
1907, 1 R. C. 767, 770; In re Rates on Milk Sc Cream, 1908, 2 R. G. 450,
465.
Value of commodity.
159. The chief features in determining the proper classification of an
article are the space occupied for each one hundred pounds of the article
and the value per hundred pounds of the same. Medford Fruit Package
Co. V. W. C. R. Co. et al., 1906, 1 R. G. 44, 47.
160. The live stock traffic is relatively more costly to handle even
than many other kinds of traffic, of which about the same quantities
with respect to weight can be gotten into the car. The value of the
same, when measured by the carload, also appears to be fully up to the
average, if not above it. These facts are important. They indicate that
the rates on live stock should be relatively high, somewhat higher, in fact,
Rates-Railroad. — Making rates — elements considered 293
than the average rates for the traffic as a whole. In re Rates on Live
..Stock, 1907, 1 R. C. 778, 810.
161. Everything else being equal, the rates of transportation usually
vary with variations in the value of the articles transported. Articles of
greater value can fairly bear higher rates than articles that are worth less.
As the carriers are liable for damage and losses on goods in transit the
risks involved are also greater in the case of high priced than in the case of
low priced articles. These conditions are of course greatly modified by
the character of the articles shipped, their bulk in proportion to the
weight, their liability to breakage or other damage, and by other factors;
but it is quite plain that value is one of the important elements that
enter into rate making. In re Rates on Pulp Wood, 1908, 2 R. C. 168,
211; So. Wis. Cheesemen's Protective Assn. v. Rij. Cos., 1906, 1 R. C. 143,
156; In re Rates on Waste Lbr. Products, 1906, 1 R. C. 291, 298; In re
Rates on Milk and Cream, 1908, 2 R. C. 450, 465; Elbertson v. C. St. P.
M. & 0. R. Co., 1908, 2 R. C. 593, 598; Webb Produce Co. v. C. & N. W.
R. Co., 1908, 3 R. C. 32, 36; In re Rates on Milk and Cream, 1909, 3 R. G.
425, 429; Milwaukee-Waukesha Brwg. Co. v. C. Sc N. W. R. Co., 1910,
5 R. C. 546, 549; Ringle et al. v. C. M. & St. P. R. Co. et al., 1911, 7 R. C.
598, 600.
162. The value of the raw material, as well as of the products that
are manufactured from it, are elements that usually must be considered
in rate making. If the rates were made the same on all articles shipped,
the chances are that the cheaper ones among them would not often be
moved at all, and this for the reason that the rates would be so high as to
absorb too large a proportion of their value. Keogh Excelsior Mfg. Co.
et al. v. C. M. & St. P. R. Co., 1908, 2 R. C. 717, 732.
163. Low grade commodities, generally speaking, must be transported
at the lowest reasonable rates if they are to be moved at all. For such
commodities the rate may easily be so high as to make the cost of trans-
portation exceed the cost of production. These are factors that should
always receive due consideration in rate making, for it is usually to the
best interests of all concerned that products of nearly all kinds should
be moved from places where they are not needed to places where there is
a demand for them. Schwoegler & Kelly v. C. M. Sz St. P. R. Co., 1910,
5 R. G. 287, 289.
Value of service.
164. It is impossible to ascribe a definite monetary significance to
such elements as alTect mainly the value of the service to the shipper.
Pulp & Paper Mfrs. Traffic Assn. v. C. & N. W. R. Co. et al., 1913, 11
R. G. 365, 377.
"What the traffic will bear."
165. When it is found that certain commodities cannot bear rates
that will cover operating expenses plus their equal proportion of a reason-
able profit on the investment, and that there are other commodities
which can bear these costs and something besides, it is usual, and, for
the reasons given, in line with the best interests of both the carriers and
the public, to so adjust the rates that the former are made to contribute
294 Rates-Railroad. — Making rates — elements considered
less and the latter more than their equal proportions of the interest on
the investment. These facts must be taken into consideration as a matter
of both business and public policy. In re Rates on Milk and Cream,
1908, 2 R. C. 450, 466.
166. It is generally recognized that, within broad and more or less
clearly defined limits, the rates should be adjusted to "what the traffic
will bear." The adoption of this principle does not make it necessary
to discard the cost theory of rate making, or to disregard any of the other
factors which enter into rates. All of the elements involved can and shall
be taken into account in rates that are fixed. Elberison v. C. St. P. M.
& 0. R. Co., 1908, 2 R. C. 593, 600.
167. An important element that enters into the question of what
rates the traffic can fairly bear, is found in competitive conditions. It is
often found that competition is so strong that the regular rate of trans-
portation would entirely prevent producers from entering certain markets.
Whenever such conditions are met with, it is often to the best interests
of both the carriers and the community that they should be fully considered
in adjusting the freight rates. If a slight shading in the rates will enable
the articles to move, and if this shading can be made without unjust
discrimination, it is usually best for all concerned that it should be made.
Milwaukee-Waukesha Brwg. Co. v. C. & N. W. R. Co., 1910, 5 R. G.
546, 549.
XXII. MAKING RATES— GRADATION OF RATES.
*
Way freight and through hauls.
168. The way freight haul is relatively more costly than through
hauls, and it is one of the essentials of a rate schedule to provide for this
difference. Ringle et al. v. C. M. & St. P. R. Co. et al, 1911, 7 R. G.
598, 605.
XXIII. MANUFAGTURERS' RATES.
Legality of.
169. The equity of lower freight rates for manufacturers than for
the general public has been previously discussed by the Gommission.
Sec. 1797-6 of the Railroad Law is understood to authorize such rates,
and the principle has been recognized by the Gommission in a number of
cases. In re Rates on Construction Material, 1906, 1 R. G. 210; Valvoline
Oil Co. V. C. & N. W. R. Co. et al., 1908, 2 R. G. 232; Cochrane Co. d.
C. M. & St. P. R. Co., 1908, 3 R. G. 1.; South Milwaukee Fuel & Supply
Co. V. C. Sz N. W. R. Co., 1911, 7 R. G. 1, 6.
On raw material.
170. The contention that a rate conditioned on the shipment of the
product out over the line bringing in the raw material, should not be
granted to a manufacturer who is not in position to reship over such line
is manifestly correct where the transit rate on the shipment of the raw
material into the factory is not sufficiently high in and of itself to return
a fair compensation to the carrier. On the other hand, it is equally clear
Rates-Railroad. — Nested 295
that manufacturers, though unable to guarantee the shipment of the
product out over the same line, should have rates on their raw material
which are no more than sufficient to yield an adequate return to the carrier
for the services involved in the separate shipment of the material into the
factory. This reasoning, it would seem, is, in general, in line with public
policy. Gablow^kij et al. v. C. & N. W. R. Co. et ai, 1912, 8 R. G. 544, 550.
171. While nearly all log rates are constructed on the basis of an
outhaul of the finished product and are not directly comparable with the
traffic under consideration where reshipment is not taken into account,
yet upon any proportional allotment of rates, the ones in question are
excessive. Webster Mfg. Co. v. C. Sc N. W. R. Co. et al., 1914, 14 R. C.
703, 704.
XXIV. MILLING IN TRANSIT RATES.
Must be granted without unjust discrimination.
172. Milling in transit privileges are generally recognized and may
result in lower cost of production as distinguished from marketing the
products, but they must be granted without unjust discrimination. As to
whether it is a discrimination to grant transit privileges to some producers
and not to others among those who are using logs of like kinds as raw
material, although the products turned out are different, is a question that
depends upon the facts in each particular case. In re Rates on Pulp
Wood, 1908, 2 R. G. 168, 222.
XXV. MINIMUM GHARGE ON PAGKAGE FREIGHT.
Reasonableness of charge.
173. The present acute situation demands a tentative order. The
minimum charge of 40 cts. on package freight now in effect in shipments
between points in Wisconsin is excessive. The former charge of 25 cts.
is to be restored for all shipments between points in Wisconsin on the same
line of railway. In shipments involving more than one line the minimum
charge shall be 40 cts. In re Minimum Charges on Package Freight,
1907, 2 R. G. 34, 36.
XXVI. NESTED.
Definition of term.
174. We are constrained to hold that no commodity can properly
be regarded as nested within the meaning of the classification or trunk
line rules, unless certain articles of a certain kind fit into one another in
such a manner as to effect a substantial saving in space as compared with
the amount of space the same number of the same article would occupy
when not thus nested, but simply placed in close proximity to one another.
The scarfed berry boxes, set up and crated, as shown in the specimen
crate, are therefore not to be regarded as nested within the meaning of
the western classification nor the western trunk line rules. Medford
Fruit Package Co. v. W. C. R. Co. et al., 1906, 1 R. G. 44. 50.
296 ^ Rates-Railroad. — Nested
175. The term "nested" as used in the western freight classification,
covers a series of two or more like articles, fitting one within another. A
distinction is made between articles simply nested and nested solid.
The latter term applies when the outside and bottom surface of the article
rest against the inside and surface of the bottom of the article below
without any intervening space, and is exclusive of articles with projecting
ears, handles, spouts, etc., which "nest" but not "solid." The detailed
classifications impose certain restrictions on certain articles, for instance,
paper boxes, to satisfy the term, must save at least one-third of the space.
Tin articles may be regarded as nested when 20 per cent of the space is
saved by one article within another. Dinner pails, consisting of several
parts, placed inside the pail proper, are ratable as nested. Gross v. U. S.
Express Co., 1909, 3 R. C. 342. 344.
XXVII. PAYMENT OF RATES.
Shipper must pay lawful rate.
176. The Commission cannot relieve a shipper from the payment of
the lawful established tariff charges. To do so would be the equivalent of
suspending the operation of the statute, which is not within the power of
the Commission. It only has authority to authorize refunds when the
payments made are found to be exorbitant, unusual, illegal or erroneous.
Paine Lhr. Co. Ltd. v. C. <Sc N. W. R. Co., 1914, 13 R. C. 633, 634.
' XXVIII. PROPORTIONAL RATES.
Nature of.
177. As is well known, proportional rates are rates applicable to
traffic destined to points beyond the line of the carrier making the same.
Proportional rates on grain are in effect through all the lake ports both
north and south. The supreme court of the United States as well as the
interstate commerce commission has repeatedlj'^ held that a proportional
rate is not a just measure of the reasonableness of a rate applied to local
or inter-line traffic terminating at the points to which such proportional
rates apply. It follows that local rates on grain in Wisconsin cannot be
measured by the proportional rates which carriers have published, effective
on traffic to Michigan and Superior ports, but destined to points beyond
these ports. In re Rates on Grain, 1906, 1 R. C. 124, 127.
XXIX. PUBLISHED RATES.
Definition of.
118. The word "published" itself has no technical legal significance.
To arrive at its meaning in a statute we must have recourse to a lexicog-
rapher. The meaning of the word is perhaps as well understood as is
any definition of it. As soon as the tariff in question was issued by the
W. C. R. Co. and copies of it were sent to the stations at which the com-
modities moving under it were received and delivered, and a copy was
sent to the party moving freight thereunder, we think such tariff was
Rates-Railroad. — Reasonableness of — matters considered ^297
made known or divulged or proclaimed or promulgated, and that it was
therefore published within the meaning of the law. Menasha Wooden
Ware Co. v. W. C. R. Co., 1906, 1 R. G. 1C8, 116-117.
XXX. REASONABLENESS OF RATES.
Reduction of rates not to be construed as an admission of prior
unreasonableness.
179. A reduction of rates, independently of other considerations,
should not be held to be an admission on the part of the railway company
that the prior rate was either unusual or exorbitant. Steven & Jarvis Lbr.
Co. V. C. St. P. M. & 0. R. Co., 1907, 2 R. G. 131, 134; Brittingham
& Young Co. v. M. St. P. & S. S. M. R. Co. et al., 1910, 4 R. G. 772, 773;
Block-PoUak Iron Co. v. C. M. & St. P. R. Co., 1910, 6 R. G. 205, 206;
Milwaukee-Waukesha Brwg. Co. v. C. Sc N. W. R. Co., 1911, 6 R. G. 518,
519; Northern Wood Co. v. M. St. P. & S. S. M. R. Co. et at., 1911, 8 R. G.
62, 63; Connor Land & Lbr. Co. v. C. Sz N. W. R. Co., 1912, 8 R. G. 697.
XXXI. REASONABLENESS OF RATES — MATTERS GON-
SIDERED IN DETERMINING REASONABLENESS.
Commercial conditions.
180. The testimony has shown that the lumber industry is apparently
not in position to stand a heavy increase in rates. No. Hemlock cfc Hardw'd
Mfrs. Assn. v. C. & N. W. R. Co., 1913, 12 R. G. 241, 245.
181. It must not be forgotten that the present system of rates is of
long standing and that business has adjusted itself to these rates. It
follows, then, that what changes must be made in the interests of justice
between all parties concerned, must be made slowly and with due regard
to relationships and values created in the past by the rates which in them-
selves contain the elements of discrimination. Waukesha Lime So Stone
Co. V. C. M. & 67. P. R. Co. et at., 1914, 13 R. G. 534, 536-537. '
Comparative data.
182. While rate comparisons are dangerous as a measure of the abso-
lute reasonableness of a proposed rate, for the reason that the rates with
which comparison is made are not proved to be reasonable and are some-
times the result of peculiar conditions, yet a comparison is of considerable
value in finding a rate that is reasonable under all the circumstances.
Wausau Paper Mills Co. v. C. M. & St. P. R. Co., 1912, 9 R. G. 400, 4P4;
Krouskop V. C. M. <Sc St. P. R. Co., 1910, 6 R. G. 184, 186; National Re-
fining Co. et al. V. C. & N. W. R. Co., 1910, 6 R. C. 326, 333; Wis. Lakes
Ice cfc Cartage Co. v. C. & N. W. R. Co., 1912, 9 R. G. 101, 109; Pulp Sz
Paper Mfrs. Traffic Assn. v. C. & N. W. R. Co. et al., 1913, 11 R. G. 365,
389.
Competitive conditions.
183. A rate schedule, to have all the good qualities it is often said to
have, cannot be made up without much of any reference to the rates on
other roads operating in the same territory, and this is expecially true when
298 Rates-Railroad. — Reasonableness" of — matters considered
the various lines are located so close to each other as to create cross-
countrj'^ competition. Gregory Bros. v. C. M. S: St. P. R. Co., 1908, 2
R. C. 791, 798; Webb Produce Co. v. C. & N. W. R. Co., 198, 3 R. G. 32,
36-37; Webster Mfg. Co. v. C. St. P. M. & 0. R. Co., 1910, 5 R. G. 95, 96;
Arpin Hardwood Lbr. Co. v. C. St. P. M. Sc 0. R. Co., 1910, 5 R. C. 441,
447; Wis. Lakes Ice Sc Cartage Co. v. C. <k N. W. R. Co., 1912, 9 R. G.
101, 109; In re C. M. Sz St. P. Switching Rates in Milwaukee, 1914, 14 R. G.
261, 271.
Cost of service.
184. Gomnion carriers are ordinarily entitled to rates for the service
they render that are high enough to cover the cost of operation, including
reasonable returns on the investment. This principle is now generally
accepted. The controversies which mostly arise regarding it are usually
limited to what, in each particular case, constitute reasonable amounts for
operating expenses and returns on the investment. Webster Mfg. Co. v.
C. St. P. M. Sc 0. R. Co., 1910, 5 R. G. 95, 96. Minch v. C. Sz N. W. R. Co.
et al., 1907, 1 R. G. 599, 606; Webb Produce Co. v. C. Sc N. W. R. Co.,
1908, 3 R. G. 32, 36; Milwaukee-Waukesha Brwg. Co. v. C. Sc N. W. R. Co.,
1910, 5 R. G. 546, 549-550; National Refining Co. et al. v. C. Sc N. W. R.
Co., 1910, 6 R. C. 326, 333; Ringle et al. v. C. M. Sc St. P. R. Co. et al, 1911,
7 R. G. 170, 179-180; Eau Claire Concrete Co. v. C. M. Sc St. P. R. Co.
et al., 1912, 9 R. G. 82, 85; Wis. Lakes Ice cfc Cartage Co. v. C. Sc N. W. R.
Co., 1912, 9 R. G. 101, 109; Pulp Sc Paper Mfrs. Traffic Assn. v. C. Sc N. W.
R. Co. et al., 1913, 11 R. G. 365, 390; No. Hemlock Sc Hardw'd Mfrs. Assn.
V. C. Sc N. W.R. Co., 1913, 12 R. G. 241, 246; Pennsylvania Coal Sc Supply
Co. V. C. M. Sc St. P. R. Co., 1914, 14 R. G. 746, 748.
Earnings from intrastate traffic.
185. The earnings from intrastate traffic are important elements in
determining the reasonableness of passenger rates. Buell v. C. M. Sc St.
P. R. Co., 1907, 1 R. G. 324, 333.
Financial condition of railroad company.
186. If the respondent railway company were an old well established
Hne of road, having a large amount of traffic and earning a large income
on its investment, instead of operating at a deficit, a materially different
question would be raised in reference to the reasonableness of the rate in
question from that which now confronts us. Sandoval Zinc Co. v. M. P. Sc
N. R. Co., 1906, 1 R. G. 99, 100, 101.
Loading per car.
187. While beets are transported at lower than average rates, the
loading per car is over eight tons greater than the average, while the de-
tention of the cars is somewhat less than the average for the roads. The
lower rates on the one hand are thus offset by heavier loading and quicker
service on the other. Chippewa Sugar Co. et al. v. C. M. Sc St. P. R. Co.
et at., 1906, 1 R. G. 258, 275.
188. Among the facts which are material in determining the cost of
the service are the loading per car and the average value oi the products
Rates-Railroad. — Reasonableness of — matters considered 299
shipped. Waukesha Lime Sc Stone Co. v. C. M. & St. P. R. Co. et al.,
1912, 9 R. G. 87, 95.
189. As is well known, a heavily loaded car is moved at much less
expense per unit of weight than a car of light loading; and in the same way
a long haul is ordinarily more profitable to the railway company than a
short haul. So. Wis. Sand <fc Gravel Co. et al. v. C. Sc N. W. R. Co.y 1912,
10 R. C. 436, 440.
Prevention of monopoly of natural resource.
190. It is against public policy to permit a railroad company to put
into elTect rates which will operate to seclude large timber resources for its
sole benefit and exclude from sharing in those resources other portions of
the state which have an equal need for them, for such action would lead
to monopoly of the most offensive sort. In general it is the plain duty of
transportation to do all that it may to lessen the inequalities existing be-
tween industries located in close proximity to the raw material they re-
quire and industries further removed from their sources of supply. Pulp
& Paper Mfrs. Traffic Assn. v. C. & N. W. R. Co. et al., 1914, 13 R. G. 735,
739.
Purpose for which article is intended.
191. It has been repeatedly held by the courts that the purpose for
which the articles are intended may properly be taken into account in ad-
justing rates. This principle is strongly supported by accepted economic
theories, and is perhaps in line with public policy whenever it can be ap-
plied without unjust discrimination or preference to 'any one. Under
such circumstances it is manifestly clear that discrimination must be shown
by other facts than by a mere difference in rates. Oshkosh Logging Tool
Co. V. C. cfc A^. W. R. Co., 1907, 2 R. G. 116, 125.
Rates of return.
192. As a general proposition we say that rates in the aggregate are
too high when they afford the carrier more than a reasonable rate of com-
pensation on the amount of its investment over and above the cost of
doing the business and of keeping the road and equipment in a good
state of repair. Buell v. C. M. & St. P. R. Co., 1907, 1 R. G. 324, 339.
Relation to other rates.
193. In every rate case which we have heretofore decided, involving
the reasonableness of the rate in itself, we have acted upon the assumption,
which we regard as fundamental, that every branch of the railway service
shall pay its own way and that every class of traffic within each branch
shall, as far as commercial and competitive conditions permit, stand on
its own bottom. While, technically, the law, as interpreted by the courts
up to the present moment, may not require this in all cases, we are con-
vinced that the spirit of the law does require it. Equity positively de-
mands it and rational social and economic theory supports it. Streveler v.
Marathon County R. Co., 1907, 1 R. G. 831, 839.
300 Rates-Railroad. — Reasonableness of — matters considered
Relation of weights.
194. The relation of net weights to the total gross weight of the car
is an important consideration. Pennsylvania Coal & Supply Co. v. C. M.,&
St. P. R. Co., 1914, 14 R. G. 746, 749.
Reshipment clause.
195. In addition to the physical conditions making for a low cost of
transportation, the reshipment clause in the saw-log tariff, by which the
shipper is required to transport his finished product over^the railroad
line that brought in the raw material, is of importance in justifying a low
basis of rates. No. Hemlock Sz Hardw'd Mfrs. Assn. v. C. & N. W. R.
Co., 1913, 12 R. C. 241, 246.
Traffic conditions.
196. In passing upon rates, fairly reliable data must also be had
concerning the quantity of each class and kind of articles thus transported.
Webb Produce Co. v. C. & N. W. R. Co., 1908, 3 R. C. 32, 36-37; Allen v.
C. M. & St. P. R. Co., 1913, 12 R. C. 95, 98-99; Pennsylvania Coal Sc
Supply Co. V. C. M. & St. P. R. Co., 1914, 14 R. G. 746, 748.
Value of commodity.
197. In passing upon rates it is necessary to know the relation which
exists between the value of the commodities involved, and the value of
the articles that are included in each of the various classes of the classifi-
cation and which are transported by the carrier. Webb Produce Co. v.
C. A iV. W. R. Co., 1908, 3 R. G. 32, 36.
198. The best interests of the carrier, as well as of the shippers and
the public, are generally subserved when the rates of transportation are
somewhat closely adjusted to the value of the products. Arpin Hardwood
Lbr. Co. V. C. St. P. M. Sz 0. R. Co., 1910, 5 R. G. 441, 446-447; Mineral
PL Zinc Co. V. C. Sc N. W. R. Co. et al., 1911, 7 R. G. 583, 594.
XXXII. REASONABLENESS OF RATES IN PARTIGULAR GASES.
All commodities.
199. Reasonableness of rates on all commodities passed upon. In
re Marathon County R. Co., 1911, 7 R. G. 392; Connor Lbr. & Land Co. v.
Laona & N. R. Co. et at., 1913, 12 R. G. 761.
Agricultural implements.
200. Reasonableness of rates on agricultural implements passed
upon. Lindsay Bros. v. C. M. & St. P. R. Co., 1908, 3 R. G. 114; Lindsay
Bros. V. M. St. P. & S. S. M. R. Co., 1911, 7 R. G. 17; In re Rates on Agri-
cultural Implements, 1913, 11 R. G. 508.
Auto gear frames.
201. Reasonableness of rates on auto gear frames passed upon.
Mitchell Lewis Motor Co. v. C. M. & St. P. R. Co., 1913, 11 R. G. 709.
Rates-Railroad. — Reasonableness of in particular cases 301
Axles.
202. Reasonableness of rates on axles passed upon. Higgins Spring
& Axle Co. V. C. Sc N. W. R. Co., 1912, 9 R. G. 180.
Bags.
203. Reasonableness of rates on burlap bags passed upon. Milwaukee
Bag Co. v. M. St. P. & S. S. M. R. Co. et al., 1912, 9 R. C. 182.
Barley.
204. Reasonableness of rates on barley passed upon. Manitowoc
Malting Co. v. W. C. R. Co. et at., 1906, 1 R. G. 69; Owen Sc Brother Co.
V. C. & N. W. R. Co., 1914, 14 R. G. 79.
Baskets.
205. Reasonableness of rates on baskets passed upon. Gross u.
U. S. Express Co., 1909, 3 R. G. 342.
Beer.
206. Reasonableness of rates on beer passed upon. Pabst Brwg. Co,
V. C. & N. W. R. Co., 1909, 4 R. G. 173; Gund Brwg. Co. v. C. & N. W.
R. Co., 1909, 4 R. G. 190; Pabst Brwg. Co. v. C. <k N. W. R. Co., 1910.
4 R. G. 766; Milwaukee-Waukesha Brwg. Co. v. C. & N. W. R. Co., 1910,
5 R. G. 546; Mitchell Brwg. Co. v. C. Sc N. W.R. Co. et al., 1910, 6 R. G,
18; Milwaukee-Waukesha Brwg. Co. v. C. Sc N. W. R. Co., 1911, 6 R. G.
518; Semrad Bros. Sc Pusch Brwg. Co. v. C. Sc N. W. R. Co. et al., 1912,
9 R. G. 76; 1913, 12 R. G. 236; Pabst Brwg. Co. et al. v. C. M. Sc St. P.
R. Co. et al., 1913, 13 R. G. 42; Wausau Advancement Assn. v. C. M. Sc
St. P. R. Co., 1914, 13 R. G. 527; Ruder Brwg. Co. v. C. M. Sc St. P. R. Co.,
1914, 14 R. G. 508.
Bolts.
207. Reasonableness of rates on bolts passed upon. Hanowitz v.
M. R. Co. et al., 1908, 2 R. G. 333; Keogh Excelsior Mfg. Co. et al. v. C. M.
Sc St. P. R. Co., 1908, 2 R. G. 717; Kemmeter v. C. St. P. M. Sc 0. R. Co.,
1909, 3 R. G. 518; Kenfield Sc Lamoreaux Lbr. Co. v. C. St. P. M. Sc
0. R. Co., 1909, 3 R. G. feOO; Fergot v. C. Sc N. W. R. Co., 1909, 4 R. C.
248; Kenfield Sc Lamoreaux v. C. St. P. M. Sc 0. R. Co., 1910, 4 R. G. 465;
Streveler et al. v. Marathon County R. Co. et al., 1912, 10 R. G. 409; Mari-
nette-Green Bay Mfg. Co. v. C. M. Sc St. P. R. Co., 1912, 11 R. G. 133;
Menasha Wooden Ware Co. v. M. St. P. Sc S. S. M. R. Co., 1913, 11 R. G.
746; Gilman Mfg. Co. v. Stanley, M. Sc P. R. Co. et al., 1913, 12 R. G. 134;
Kenfield-Lamoreaux Lbr. Co. v. C. St. P. M. Sc 0. R. Co., 1913, 12 R. G.
192; Merrill Wooden Ware Co. v. M. St. P. Sc S. S. M. R. Co., 1914, 14
R. G. 805; Oshkosh Excelsior Mfg. Co. v. M. St. P. Sc S. S. M. R. Co.,
1914, 15 R. G. 178; Kenfield-Lamoreaux Co. v. C. St. P. M. Sc 0. R. Co.,
1914, 15 R. G. 294; Barker-Stewart Lbr. Co. et al. v. C. M. Sc St. P. R. Co.,
1915, 15 R. G. 645.
Bottles.
208. Reasonableness of rates on bottles passed upon. Franzen Sc
Co. V. M. St. P. Sc S. S. M. R. Co., 1914, 14 R. G. 77; Gund Brwg. Co. v.
C. M. Sc St. P. R. Co., 1914, 15 R. G. 82.
302 Rates — Railroad. — Reasonableness of in particular cases
Box shooks.
210. Reasonableness of rates on box shooks passed upon. Big Four
Canning Co. v. C. St. P. M. & 0. R. Co., 1914, 14 R. C. 84.
Boxes.
209. Reasonableness of rates on boxes passed upon. Medford Fruit
Package Co. v. W. C. R. Co. et al., 1906, 1 R. C. 44; Kieckhefer Box Co. v.
C. M. <Sc St. P. R. Co. et al., 1912, 11 R. C. 101; Wausau Box Sc Lbr. Co.
V. C. & N. W. R. Co., 1914, 13 R. C. 698; Wausau Advancement Assn.
V. C. iSc N. W. R. Co., 1914, 13 R. G. 772.
Brick.
211. Reasonableness of rates on brick passed upon. Barney v.
G. B. Sc W. R. Co. et al, 1910, 4 R. C. 775; Rowland Sc Son v. C. Sc N. W.
R. Co., 1912, 9 R. C. 163; Hopwood v. C. St. P. M. Sc 0. R. Co. et al,
1913, 12 R. C. 217; Ruedebusch v. C. M. Sc St. P. R. Co., 1918, 12 R. G.
248; 1914, 14 R. G. 92.
Brick and tile.
212. Reasonableness of rates on brick and tile passed upon. Ringle
et al V. C. M. Sc St. P. R. Co. et al, 1911, 7 R. G. 170; 598; Wis. Clay
Mfrs. Assn. v. C. M. Sc St. P. R. Co. et al, 1914, 13 R. G. 756.
Buckwheat.
213. Reasonableness of rates on buckwheat passed upon. Owen Sc
Bro. Co. D. M. St. P. Sc S. S. M. R. Co., 1912, 9 R. G. 43.
Building materials.
214. Reasonableness of rates on building material passed upon.
Milwaukee Structural Steel Co. v. C. M. Sc St. P. R. Co., 1914, 13 R. G.
673.
Butter and eggs.
215. Reasonableness of rates on butter and eggs passed upon.
Cochrane Co. v. C. M. Sc St. P. R. Co., 1908, 3 R. G. 1; Webb Produce Co.
V. C. Sc N. W. R. Co., 1908, 3 R. G. 32; Ellis and Sons v. C. Sc N. W. R. Co.,
1909, 3 R. G. 337.
Canned goods.
216. Reasonableness of rates on canned goods passed upon. Columbus
Canning Co. v. CM. Sc Si P. R. Co., 1913, 12 R. G. 137.
Car stakes.
217. Reasonableness of rates on car stakes passed upon. Pulp
Wood Co. V. C. Sc N. W. R. Co., 1912, 11 R. G. 144; Rhinelander Paper
Co. V. M. St. P. Sc S. S. M. R. Co., 1913, 13 R. G. 84; Brown Bros.- Lbr.
Co.v. M. St. P. Sc S. S. M. R. Co., 1914, 14 R. G. 204.
Castings.
218. Reasonableness of rates on castings passed upon. Beaver Dam
Lbr. Co. V. C. St. P. M. Sc 0. R. Co., 1908, 2 R. G. 703.
Rates-Railroad. — Reasonableness of in particular cases 303
Cement. ^ ■
219. Reasonableness of rates on cement passed upon. Cook Sc Brown
Lime Co. v. W. C. R. Co., 1908, 2 R. C. 298; Streveler et al. v. Marathon
County R. Co. et al., 1912, 10 R. C. 409.
Cheese.
220. Reasonableness of rates on cheese passed upon. So. Wis.
Cheesemen's Protective Assn. v. Ry. Cos., 1906, 1 R. C. 143; Stanz Co. v.
M. St. P. Sc S. S. M. R. Co., 1911, 6 R. C. 579; Kraft & Bros. Co. et al. v.
M. P. & N. R. Co. et al., 1914, 15 R. C. 217.
Cheese boxes.
221. Reasonableness of rates on cheese boxes passed upon. Parfrey
V. C. M. & St. P. R. Co. et al., 1910, 4 R. C. 450; 5 R. C. 551; Kiel Wooden
Ware Co. v. C. M. <k St. P. R. Co., 1912, 9 R. C. 278; Parfrey Mfg. Co. v.
C. M. & St. P. R. Co. et al., 1912, 9 R. C. 517; Creamery Package Mfg. Co.
V. M. St. P. & S. S. M. R., Co., 1914, 14 R. C. 761.
Christmas trees.
222. Reasonableness of rates on christmas trees passed upon. Allen
V. C. M. & St. P. R. Co., 1913, 12 R. C. 95.
Coal.
223. Reasonableness of rates on coal passed upon. Noble et al. v
C. St. P. M. & 0. R. Co., 1907, 1 R. C. 767; Schwartz v. C. M. Sc St. P
R. Co., 1907, 2 R. C. 75; Elbertson v. C. St. P. M. Sc 0. R. Co., 1908
2 R. C. 593; Gregory Bros. v. C. M. & St. P. R. Co., 1908, 2 R. C. 791
Milwaukee-Western Fuel Co. v. C. Sc N. W. R. Co., 1909, 3 R. C. 517
Wis.. Pulp Sc Paper Mfrs. v. C. & N. W. R. Co. et al., 1910, 6 R. C. 436
So. Milwaukee Fuel & Supply Co. v. C. Sc N. W. R. Co., 1911, 7 R. C. 1
1912, 8 R. C. 473; Emerald Co-Op. Creamery v. C. St. P. M. S: 0. R. Co.
1912, 8 R. C. 683; Schultz v. C. M. S: St. P. R. Co., 1912, 10 R. C. 370
Philadelphia Sc R. C. Scl. Co. v. M. St. P. Sc S. S. M. R. Co., 1912, 8 R. C
542; Elmore Benjamin Coal Co. v. C. Sc N. W. R. Co., 1912, 9 R. C. 396
Western Elevator Co. v. C. Sc N. W. R. Co., 1913, 12 R. C. 184; Hale-
Mylrea Lbr. Co. v. C. Sc N. W. R. Co., 1913, 12 R. C. 709; Pennsylvania
Coal Sc Supply Co. v. C. M. Sc St. P. R. Co., 1914, 14 R. C. 746.
Coke.
224. Reasonableness of rates on coke passed upon. Ideal Lbr. Sc
Coal Co. V. C. M. Sc St. P. R. Co., 1909, 4 R. C.171; South Milwaukee Fuel
Sc Supply Co. V. C. Sc N. W. R. Co., 1911, 7 R. C. 1; 1912, 8 R. C. 473;
Pape V. C. Sc N. W. R. Co., 1912, 8 R. C. 566; Callaway Fuel Co. v. C. Sc
N. W. R. Co. et al., 1914, 13 R. C. 694.
Concrete blocks.
225. Reasonableness of rates on concrete blocks passed upon.
Eau Claire Concrete Co. v. C. M. Sc St. P. R. Co. d al, 1912, 9 R. C. 82.
Construction material.
226. Reasonableness of rates on construction material passed upon.
La Crosse Water P. Co. v. C. St. P. M. Sc 0. R. Co., 1910, 4 R. C. 412;
6 R. C. 173.
304 Rates-Railroad. — Reasonableness of in particular cases
Corn.
227. Reasonableness of rates on corn passed upon. Ewer v. C. St.
P. M. & 0. R. Co., 1909, 4 R. G. 331.
Crushed stone.
228. Reasonableness of rates on crushed stone" passed upon. Wauke-
sha Lime & Stone Co. u. C. M. <Sc St. P. R. Co. et al., 1912, 9 R. C. 87, 347;
In re Invest. Rates on Sand etc. on C. M. & St. P. R., 1912, 11 R. C. 98;
Waukesha Lime & Stone Co. v. C. Sz N. W. R. Co. et al., 1913, 13 R. C.
368; 1914, 15 R. C. 479.
Cucumbers.
229. Reasonableness of rates on cucumbers passed upon. Alart &
McGuire v. G. B. & W. R. Co., 1908, 2 R. C. 340; Heinz Co. v. C. M. Sc
St. P.R. Co., 1909, 4 R. G. 144.
Dried brewers' grains.
230. Reasonableness of rates on dried brewers' grains passed upon.
The Hottelet Co. v. C. M. & St. P. R. Co., 1910, 5 R. G. 705.
Eggs.
231. Reasonableness of rates on eggs passed upon. Stolte, Dangel &
Foss Co. V. C. & N. W. R. Co., 1909, 3 R. G. 335; Webb Produce Co. v. C. <Sc
N. W. R. Co., 1909, 3 R. G. 338.
Empty beer packages.
232. Reasonableness of rates on empty beer packages passed upon.
Pabst Brwg. Co. v. C. <Sc N. W. R. Co., 1910, 4 R. G. 403.
Excelsior.
233. Reasonableness of rates on excelsior passed upon. Selle Sc Co. v.
C. St. P. M. & 0. R. Co. et al, 1909, 3 R. G. 595; Sheboygan Pad Co. v.
C. Sc N. W. R. Co., 1912, 10 R. G. 641; Selle Sc Co. v. M. St. P. Sc S. S. M.
R. Co., 1914, 13 R. G. 635; 14 R. G. 225, 544.
Farm wagons, etc.
234. Reasonableness of rates on farm wagons, farm trucks, gasoline
engine trucks, logging trucks and extra wagon boxes passed upon. North-
western Mfg. Co. et al. v. C. Sc N. W. R. Co. et al., 1914, 13 R. G. 751.
Feed and refuse.
235. Reasonableness of rates on feed and refuse passed upon.
Schultz V. C. M. Sc St. P. R. Co., 1912. 10 R. G. 370.
Fish boxes.
236. Reasonableness of rates on fish boxes passed upon. New York
Fish Co. V. C. B. Sc Q. R. Co., 1908, 2 R. G. 613.
Flour.
237. Reasonableness of rates on flour passed upon. Listman Mill
Co. p. C. Sc N. W. R. Co., 1910, 6 R. G. 207.
Rates-Railroad. — Reasonableness of in particular cases 305
Forest products.
238. Reasonableness of rates on forest products passed upon. Meyer
V. Rib Lake Lbr. Co. et al, 1911, 7 R. C. 401; Connor Lbr. &: Land Co. v.
Laona & N. R. Co. et al., 1913, 12 R. C. 761.
Foundry patterns.
239. Reasonableness of rates on foundry patterns passed upon. Rom
Co. V. C. M. & St. P. R. Co., 1911, 8 R. C. 325.
Fruit.
240. Reasonableness of rates on fruit passed upon. Ives Co. v. M,
St. P. <Sc S. S. M. R. Co., 1910, 5 R. C. 675.
Grain.
241. Reasonableness of rates on grain passed upon. In re Rates on
Grain, 1906, 1 R. C. 124; Minch v. C. & N. W. R. Co. et at., 1907, 1 R. C.
599; New Richmond R. M. Co. v. C. St. P. M. <Sc 0. R. Co., 1908, 2 R. G.
610; Franke Grain Co. v. C. <Sc N. W. R. Co., 1908, 3 R. G. 182; Badlett <Sc
Son Co. V. C. & N. W. R. Co., 1909, 3 R. G. 451; Osceola Mill & Elevator
Co. V. M. St. P. & S. S. M. R. Co., 1910, 4 R. G. 483; New Richmond Roller
Mills Co. V. C. SI. P. M. & 0..R. Co., 1910, 4 R. G. 488; Eckhart v. C. B. &
Q. R. Co. et al., 1910, 4 R. G. 781; Osceola Mill & Elev. Co. v. M. St. P. Sc
S. S. M. R. Co., 1910, 5 R. G. 291; Bell cfc Co. v. G. B. & W. R. Co. et al.,
1910, 5 R. G. 430; Broughton v. C. Sc N. W. R. Co., 1910, 5 R. G. 432;
In re Mixed Carloads of Grains and Seeds, 1910, 5 R. G. 711; Duluth-
Superior Millg. Co. v. N. P. R: Co., 1911, 7 R. G. 459; Bacon & Co. v.
M. St. P. & S. S. M. R. Co., 1912, 9 R. G. 62; 468; Blodgett Millg. Co. v.
C. & N. W. R. Co., 1912, 10 R. G. 377; Streveler et al. v. Marathon Co. R.
Co. et al., 1912, 10 R. G. 409; New Richmond Roller Mills Co. v. F. & N.
E. R. Co. et al., 1913, 11 R. G. 272; Wolf v. C. M. & St. P. R. Co., 1913,
13 R. G. 375; Blodgett Millg. Co. v. C. Sc N. W. R. Co., 1914, 13 R. G. 782.
Granite blocks.
242. Reasonableness of rates on granite blocks passed upon. White
Rock Quarry Co. v. C. Sc N. W. R. Co., 1914, 13 R. G. 669.
Gravel.
243. Reasonableness of rates on gravel passed upon. Waukesha Lime
& Stone Co. v. C. M. & St. P. R. Co. et al., 1912, 9 R. G. 87; 347; So. Wis.
Sand & Gravel Co. et al. v. C. & N. W. R. Co., 1912, 10 R. G. 436; In re
Invest. Rates on Sand etc. on CM. & St. P. R. Co., 1912, 11 R. G. 98;
Waukesha Lime & Stone Co. v. C. & N. W. R. Co., et al., 1913, 13 R. G.
368; So. Wis. Sand Sc Gravel Co. v. C. M. Sc St. P. R. Co., 1913. 13 R. G.
380; Waukesha Lime Sc Stone Co. v. C. Sc N. W. R. Co. et al, 1914, 15 R. G.
479; Waupaca Sand Sc Gravel Co. v. Waupaca G. B. R. Co. et al., 1914,
15 R. G. 482.
Ground limestone.
244. Reasonableness of rates on ground limestone passed upon.
Waukesha Lime Sc Stone Co. u. M. St. P. Sc S. S. M. R. Co. et al, 1914, 14
R. G. 718.
306 Rates-Railroad. — Reasonableness of in particular cases
Hardware.
245. Reasonableness of rates on hardware passed upon. Stowelt
Mfg. Sc Fdry. Co. v. C. & N. W. R. Co., 1911, 8 R. C. 316.
Hay.
246. Reasonableness of rates on hay passed upon. Johns Co. v. M.
St. P: & S. S. M. R. Co., 1910, 5 R. C. 480; Streveler et al v. Marathon
County R. Co. et al., 1912, 10 R. C. 409; Wausau Advancement Assn. v.
C. <Sc N, W. R. Co., 1913, 12 R. C. ^33; Northern Milling Co. v. C. & N.
W. R. Co., 1914, 13 R. C. 468; Osceola Mill cfc Elevator Co. v. M. St. P. <Sc
S. S. M. R. Co., 1914, 14 R. C. 759.
<
Heating apparatus.
247. Reasonableness of rates on heating apparatus passed upon.
Bailey Mfg. Co. v. C. & N. W. R. Co. et al, 1913, 12 R. C. 699.
Hog fuel.
248. Reasonableness of rates on hog fuel or mill refuse passed upon.
Ellis Lbr. Co. v. C. M. & St. P. R. Co., 1914, 15 R. C. 527.
Ice.
249. Reasonableness of rates on ice passed upon. Schneider v. C.
M. Sc St. P. R. Co., 1909, 4 R. C. 71; Wis. Lakes Ice Sc Cartage Co. v. C. Sc
N. W. R. Co., 1912, 9 R. G. 101; 11 R. G. 62, 171.
Ice boat.
250. Reasonableness of rate on ice boat passed upon. Harvey v.
C. M. Sc St. P. R. Co., 1909, 3 R. G. 504.
Lead foil.
251. Reasonableness of rates- on lead foil passed upon. So. Wis.
Cheesemen's Protective Assn. v. Ry. Cos., 1906, 1 R. G. 143.
Lime.
252. Reasonableness of rates on lime passed upon. Standard Lime <fc
Stone Co. v. C. Sc N. W. R. Co., 1911, 7 R. G. 149; Waukesha Lime Sc Stone
Co. V. C. M. Sc St. P. R. Co. et al., 1912, 9 R. G. 87, 347; Pajf v. C. Sc N.
W. R. Co., 1912, 9 R. G. 160; Waukesha Lime Sc Stone Co. v. C. M. Si: St.
P. R. Co. et al., 1913, 11 R. G. 419; Mace Lime Co. v. C. Sc N. W. R. Co.,
1913, 13 R. G. 38; Superior Mfg. Co. v. C. St. P. M. <fc 0. R. Co., 1914,
15 R. G. 160.
Limestone.
253. Reasonableness of rates on limestone passed upon. Waukesha
Lime Sc Stone Co. v. M. St. P. Sc S. S. M. R. Co. et al., 1914, 13 R. G. 471.
Liquor.
254. Reasonableness of rates on liquor passed upon. National Dis-
tilling Co. V. C. Sc N. W. R. Co. et al, 1913, 11 R. G. 424.
Rates-Railroad. — Reasonableness of in particular cases 307
' Live stock.
255. Reasonableness of rates on live stock passed upon. In re Rates
on Live Stock, 1907, 1 R. G. 778; Arries & Packham et al. v. C. & N. W. R.
Co., 1911, 7 R. G. 131; Hoyt & Bergen u. C. <Sc N. W. R. Co., 1912, 8 R. G.
532; Mason & Martin v. C. & N. W. R. Co., 1912, 9 R. G. 74; Streveler
et al V. Marathon County R. Co., et al., 1912, 10 R. G. 409.
Logs.
256. Reasonableness of rates on logs passed upon. Streveler v.
Marathon County R. Co., 1907, 1 R. G. 831; Oshkosh Logging Tool Co. v.
C. & N. W. R. Co., 1907, 2 R. G. 116; Hanowitz v. M. R. Co. et al., 1908,
2 R. G. 333; Daniel Shaw Lbr. Co. u. C. St. P. M. & 0. R. Co., 1908, 2
R. G. 342; Edward Hines Lbr. Co. v.C. St. P. M. Sz 0. R. Co., 1908, 2 R. G.
390; Menasha Wooden Ware Co. v. W. C. R. Co., 1908, 2 R. G. 589; Chip-
pewa Lbr. & Boom Co. v. W. C. R. Co., 1908, 2 R. G. 607; Beaver Dam
Lbr. Co. V. C. St. P. M. & 0. R. Co., 1908, 2 R. G. 700; Stange-Ellis Lbr.
Co. V. C. M. <Sc St. P. R. Co., 1908, 2 R. G. 773; Shong <k Son v. S. M. &
P. R. Co., 1908, 3 R. G. 40; Merrill Woodenware Co. v. C. M. & St. P. R. Co.,
1908, 3 R. G. 54; Fountain-Campbell Lbr. Co. v. C. St. P. M. Sc 0: R. Co.,
1908, 3 R. G. 63; Green Bay Box Sc Lbr. Co. v. W. & M. R. Co. et al.,
1909, 3 R. G. 362; Flavian v. C. M. Sc St. P. R. Co., 1909, 3 R. G. 385;
Britton Cooperage Co. u. C. M. Sc St. P. R. Co., 1909, 3 R. G. 386, 388;
Kiel Wooden Ware Co. v. C. M. & St. P. R. Co., 1909, 3 R. G. 597; Ahnapee
Veneer & Seating Co. v. C. St. P. M. <Sc 0. R. Co., 1909, 4 R. G. 106; Uniform
Stave & Package Co. v. C. St. P. M. & 0. R. Co., 1909, 4R. G. 193; Shaw
Lbr. Co. V. C. St. P. M. <k 0. R. Co., 1909, 4 R. G. 319; Manson Sc Weinfeld
V. C. M. Sc St. P. R. Co., 1909, 4 R. G. 362; Wright Lbr. Co. v. C. M. Sc St.
P. R. Co., 1910, 4 R. G. 770; Kaiser Lbr. Co. v. C. Si. P. M. Sc 0. R. Co.,
1910, 5 R. G. 196; Arpin Hardwood Lbr. Co. v. C. St. P. M. Sc 0. R. Co.,
1910, 5 R. G. 441; Stange Co. v. C. M. Sc St. P. R. Co., 1910, 5 R. G. 596;
Ahnapee Veneer Sc Seating Co. v. M. St. P. Sc S. S. M. R. Co., 1910, 5 R. G.
643; Beaver Dam Lbr. Co. v. C. St. P. M. Sc 0. R. Co., 1910, 5 R. G. 645;
Sprague Lbr. Co. v. C. St. P. M. Sc 0. R. Co., 1910, 5 R. G. 666; Buswell
Lbr. Sc Mfg. Co. v. C. M. Sc St. P. R. Co., 1910, 6 R. G. 217; Roddis Lbr.
Sc Veneer Co. v. C. St. P. M. Sc 0. R. Co., 1911, 6 R. G. 571; Rust Owen Lbr.
Co. v. C. St. P. M. Sc 0. R. Co., 1911, 7 R. G. 12; Gablowsky et al. v. C. Sc
N. W. R. Co. et al., 1912, 8 R. G. 544; Goodman Lbr. Co. v. M. St. P. Si:
S. S. M. R. Co., 1912, 9 R. G. 41; Keith Sc Hiles Lbr. Co. v. M. St. P. Sc
S. S. M.R. Co. et al., 1912, 9 R. G. 57; Heineman Lbr. Co. v. C. M. Sc
St. P. R. Co., 1912, 9 R. G. 281; Ahnapee Veneer Sc Seating Co. v. M. St. P.
Sc S". S. M. R. Co., 1912, 9 R. G. 482; Ripon Veneer & Box Works v. C. cfc
N. W. R. Co., 1912, 9 R. G. 484; Streveler et al. v. Marathm County R.
Co. et al, 1912, 10 R. G. 409; Hammond-Chandler Lbr. Co. v. M. St. P. Sc
S. S. M. R. Co., 1912, 10 R. G. 564; Stange Co. v. C. M. cfc St. P. R. Co.,
1913, 11 R. G. 274; Badger Basket Sc Veneer Co. v. M. St. P. Sc S. S. M.
R. Co., 1913, 11 R. G. 492; Stange Co. v. C. M. Sc St. P. R. Co., 1913.
11 R. G. 725; Menasha Wooden Ware Co. v. M. St. P. Sc S. S. M. R. Co.,
1913, 11 R. G. 746; Nor. Hemlock Sc Hard'd Mfrs. Assn. v. C. Sc N. W. R.
Co., 1913, 12 R. G. 241; Wachsmuth Lbr. Co. v. Bayfield Transfer R. Co.,
1914, 14 R. G. 253; Cumberland Fruit Pkg. Co. v. C. St. P. M. Sc 0. R. Co. ,
308 Rates-Railroad. — Reasonableness of in particular cases
— — — — ■ — ' ■ ' 1 . ■ ■ I .. I ■ . . ■ - ■ ■ — ■ „ — . — __ ,
1914, 14 R. C. 287; Sprague Lbr. Co. v. C. St. P. M. & 0. R. Co., 1914,'
14 R. C. 289; Wachsmuth Lbr. Co. v. Bayfield Transfer Ry. Co., 1914,
14 R. C. 601; Peshtigo Lbr. Co. v. C. cfc N. W. R. Co., 1914, 14 R. C. 624;
Barker-Stewart Lbr. Co. et al. v. C. & N. W. R. Co., 1914, 14 R. C. 628;
Webster Mfg. Co. v. C. & N. W. R. Co. et al., 1914, 14 R. G. 703; Peshtigo
Lbr. Co. V. C. M. Sc St. P. R. Co., 1914, 15 R. C. 43; John Week Lbr. Co.
V. C. M. & St. P. R. Co. et al., 1914, 15 R. C. 53; Cumberland Fruit Pkg.
Co. V. C. St. P. M. Sc 0. R. Co., 1914, 15 R. C. 158; Colby Cheese Box &
Silo Co. V. M. St. P. & S. S. M. R. Co., 1914, 15 R. C. 469; Brown Bros.
Lbr. Co. V. M. St. P. <Sc S. S. M. R. Co., 1915, 15 R. C. 569; Barker- Stewart
Lbr. Co. et al. v. C. M. & St. P. R. Co., 1915, 15 R. C. 645.
Lumber.
257. Reasonableness of rates on lumber passed upon. G. W. Jones
Lbr. Co. V. C. Sc N. W. R. Co., 1907. 1 R. C. 520; Price v. C. & N. W. R. Co.,
1907, 1 R. C. 611; Steven <k Jaruis Lbr. Co. v. C. St. P. M. & 0. R. Co.,
1907, 2 R. C. 131; Shawano Lbr. Co. v. C. & N. W. R. Co., 1908, 2 R. C.
775; Steven & Jarvis Lbr. Co. v. C. St. P. M. & 0. R. Co., 1908, 3 R. C.
66; Price v. W. Sc N. R. Co. et al, 1909, 3 R. C. 467; Wis. Retail Lbr.
Dealers' Assn. v. C. & N. W. R. Co. et al, 1909, 3 R. C. 471; Wis. Box Co.
et al. V. C. M. Sc St. P. R. Co. et al., 1909, 3 R. C. 605; Ahnapee Veneer Sc
Seating Co. v. M. St. P. Sc S. S. M. R. Co. et al., 1909, 4 R. G. 109; Whittet
V. C. M. Sc St. P. R. Co. et al., 1909, 4 R. G. 195; Wis. Box Co. et al. v.
C. Sc N. W. R. Co., 1909, 4 R. G. 256; Wis. Box Co. v. C. M. Sc St. P. R.
Co., 1909, 4 R. G. 271; Wis. Box Co. v. C. Sc N. W. R. Co., 1909, 4 R. G.
323; Wis. Box Co. v. C. M. Sc St. P. R. Co., 1909, 4 R. G. 327; Wausau
Box Sc Lbr. Co. v. C. Sc N. W. R. Co., 1909, 4 R. G. 335; Wausau Box Sc
Lbr. Co. v. C. M. Sc St. P. R. Co., 1909, 4 R. G. 337; Heinemann Lbr. Co.
V. C. & N. W. R. Co., 1909, 4 R. G. 356; Wis. Box Co. v. C. Sc N. W. R. Co.,
1910, 4 R. G. 405; Wausau Box Sc Lbr. Co. v. C. M. Sc St. P. R. Co., 1910,
4 R. G. 457; Wausau Box Sc Lbr. Co. v. C. Sc N. W. R. Co., 1910, 4 R. G.
459; GoodwillieBros. v. C. Sc N. W. R. Co., 1910, 4 R. G. 461; Goodwillie
Bros. V. C. M. Sc St. P. R. Co., 1910, 4 R. G. 463; Somo River Lbr. Co. v.
W. Sc N. R. Co. et al., 1910, 4 R. G. 485; Brittingham Sc Young Co. v.
M. St. P. Sc S. S. M. R. Co. et al., 1910, 4 R. G. 772; Wis. Box Co. v. C. M.
Sc St. P. R. Co., 1910, 4 R. G. 768; Webster Mfg. Co. v. C. St. P. M. Sc
0. R. Co., 1910, 5 R. G. 95; Brown Bros. Lbr. Co. v. M. St. P. Sc S. S. M.
R. Co. et al., 1910, 5 R. G. 647, 655, 663; Pelletier S: Co. v. C. St. P. M. Sc
0. R. Co. et al, 1910, 5 R. G. 721; Badger Co. v. M. St. P. & S. S. M. R.
Co. et al., 1910, 5 R. G. 729; Yawkey-Bissel Lbr. Co. v. C. St N. W. R. Co.,
1910, 6 R. G. 21; Krouskop v. C. M. Sc St. P. R. Co., 1910, 6 R. G.'184;
Yawkey-Bissel Lbr. Co. u. C. & N. W. R. Co., 1910, 6 R. G. 209; Brittingham
Sc Young Co. v. C. M. Sc St. P. R. Co. et al., 1911, 6 R. G. 528; Edward
Nines Lbr. Co. u. C. St. P. M. Sc 0. R. Co., 1911, 7 R. G. 14; Brown Land
Jb Lbr. Co. v. M. St. P. Sc S. S. M. R. Co., 1911, 7 R. G. 581; Connor Land
Sc Lbr. Co. V. C. Sc N. W. R. Co., 1911, .7 R. G. 774; Krouskop v. C. M. Sc
St. P. R. Co., 1911, 8 R. G. 32; Badger Co. v. M. St. P. Sc S. S. M. R. Co.
et al., 1911, 8 R. G. 125; Brittingham Sc Young Co. v. C. M. Sc St. P. R. Co.,
1911, 8 R. G. 131; Mears-Slayton Lbr. Co. v. Wis. Sc N. R. Co. et al., 1911,
8 R. G. 247; Jefferson Brick Sc Tile Co. v. C. St N. W. R. Co., 1912, 8 R. G.
Rates-Railroad. — Reasonableness of in particular cases 309
553; Connor Land d: Lbr. Co. v. C. & N. W. R. Co., 1912, 8 R. G. 697
Marinette & Menominee Box Co. v. C. M. Sc St. P. R. Co., 1912, 9 R. C
37; Streveler et al. v. Marathon County R. Co. et al., 1912, 10 R. G. 409
Blackwell <Sc Kaiser v. C. M. & St. P. R. Co. et al., 1913, 11 R. G. 267
Gillette-O'Leary Co. v. M. St. P. <k S. S. M. R. Co., 1913, 11 R. G. 276
A. S. Badger Co. v. M. St. P. Sc S. S. M. R. Co., 1913, 11 R. G. 434
Reitbrock Land & Lbr. Co. v. M. St. P. Sc S. S. M. R. Co., 1913, 11 R. G
447; Steven <Sc Jarvis Lbr. Co. v. C. Si. P. M. & 0. R. Co., 1913, 12 R. G
131; Pounder v. C. & N. W. R. Co. et al., 1913, 12 R. G. 219; Foster-
Latimer Lbr. Co. V. M. St. P. Sc S. S. M. R. Co., 1913, 12 R. G. 239
Schroeder Lbr. Co. v. M. St. P. & S. S. M. R. Co., 1913, 12 R. G. 701
Wausau Advancement Assn. v. C. Sc N. W. R. Co., 1914, 13 R. G. 772
Rusk Box & Furniture Co. v. M. St. P. & S. S. M. R. Co., 1914, 14 R. G
136; Pierce v. M. St. P. & S. S. M. R. Go. et al., 1914, 14 R. G. 754
Schroeder Lbr. Co. v. C. <Sc N. W. R. Co. et al., 1914, 14 R. G. 823; Mason-
Donaldson Lbr. Co. v. M. St. P. & S. S. M. R. Co., 1914, 15 R. G. 388;
Pierce v. M. St. P. & S. S. M. R. Co. et al., 1914, 15 R. G. 473; Central
Wis. Traffic Bur. v. C. M. & St. P. R. Co., 1914, 15 R. G. 521; Mason-
Donaldson Lbr. Co. V. C. Sz N. W. R. Co., 1915, 15 R. G. 575.
Milk and cream.
258. Reasonableness of rates on milk and cream passed upon. In re
Rates on Milk and Cream, 1908, 2 R. G. 450; 1909, 3 R. G. 425; Greengo
V. C. M. & St. P. R. Co., 1914, 15 R. G. 532.
«
Motor boat.
259. Reasonableness of rates on motor boat passed upon. Brandel v.
C. & N. W. R. Co., 1910, 4 R. G. 498.
Oil (fuel).
260.^ Reasonableness of rates on fuel oil passed upon. Northwestern
Iron Co. V. C. M. & St. P. R. Co., 1914, 14 R. G. 577.
Onions.
261. Reasonableness of rates on onions passed upon. Alart Sc
McQuire v. G. B. Sc W. R. Co., 1908, 2 R. G. 340.
Ore (iron).
262. Reasonableness of rates on iron ore passed upon. Oglebay^
Norton Sc Co. v. M. St. P. Sc S. S. M. R. Co. et al., 1913, 12 R. G. 716.
Ore (lead).
263. Reasonableness of rates on lead ore passed upon. Sandoval
Zinc Co. v. M. P. Sc N. R. Co., 1906, 1 R. G. 99.
Ore (zinc).
264. Reasonableness of rates on zinc ore passed upon. Sandoval
Zinc Co. v. M. P. Sc N. R. Co., 1906, 1 R. G. 99; Mineral PL Zinc Co. v.
C. Sc N. W. R. Co. et al., 1911, 7 R. G. 583.
310 Rates-Railroad. — Reasonableness of in particular cases
Paper.
*
265. Reasonableness of rates on paper passed upon. Menasha
Paper Co. v. W. C. R. Co., 1908^ 2 R. C. 300; Cantwell Paper Co. v. C. &
N. W, R. Co., 1910, 5 R. C. 293; Phoenix Wall Paper Mfg. Co. v. M. St.
P. & S. S. M. R. Co., 1910, 6 R. C. 182; Menasha Paper Co. v. M. St.
P. (ScS. S. M. R. Co., 1911, 8 R. C. 78.
Passenger rates.
266. Reasonableness of passenger rates passed upon. Buell v.
C. M. & St. P. R. Co., 1907, 1 I^- G. 324; Buell v. C.& N. W. R. Co., 1907,
1 R. G. 508; Houser v. C. St. P. M. <Sc 0. R. Co., 1907, 1 R. G. 510; In re
Passenger Rates M. St. P. cfc S. S. M. R. Co., 1907, 1 R. G. 540.
Peas and beans. «
267. Reasonableness of rates on peas and beans passed upon. John
H. Allen Seed Co. v. C. & N. W. R. Co. et at., 1915, 15 R. G. 641.
Petroleum products.
268. Reasonableness of rates on petroleum products passed upon.
National Refining Co. et al, v. C. Sc N. W. R. Co., 1910, 6 R. G. 326.
PUing.
269. Reasonableness of rates on piling passed upon. Hale-Mylrea
Co. V. C. & N. W. R. Co., 1912, 10 R. G. 639; Perky Lowe & Co. v. W. &
M. R. Co., 1912, 11 R. G. 108.
Pine trimmings.
270. Reasonableness of rates on pine trimmings passed upon. Camp-
bell V. C. St. P. M. & 0. R. Co., 1906, 1 R. G. 197.
Poles.
271. Reasonableness of rates on poles passed upon. Torrey Cedar
Co. V. C. Sc N. W. R. Co., 1912, 9 R. G. 185; 10 R. G. 461.
Posts.
272. Reasonableness of rates on posts passed upon. Tinkham v.
C. Sz N. W. R. Co. et al, 1909, 4 R. G. 329; Schneider v. S. M. Sc P. R. Co.,
1912, 9 R. G. 64; Torrey Cedar Co. v. C. & N. W. R. Co., 1912, 9 R. G.
185; 10 R. G. 461; Peshtigo Lbr. Co. v. C. M. & St. P. R. Co. et al, 1914,
14 R. G. 188.
Potatoes.
273. Reasonableness of rates on potatoes passed upon. Streveler et al.
V. Marathon County R. Co. et at.-, 1912, 10 R. G. 409.
Pulp.
274. Reasonableness of rates on pulp passed upon. Menasha Paper
Co. V. M. St. P. <Sc S. S. M. R. Co., 1909, 4 R. G. 360; Menasha Paper Co. v.
C. M. Sc St. P. R. Co. et al, 1911, 6 R. G. 586; Rhinelander Paper Co. v.
C. M. & St. P. R. Co. et al, 1911, 8 R. G. 58; Wis: River Paper Sc Pulp
Co. V. C. Sc N. W. R. Co. et al, 1911, 8 R. G. 64; Wausau Paper Mills Co. v.
Rates-Railroad. — Reasonableness of in particular cases 311
C. M. & St. P. R. Co., 1912, 9 R. G. 400; Flambeau Paper Co. v. C. M. <Sc
St. P. R. Co. et al, 1913, 11 R. C. 699; Wausau Paper Mills Co. v. C. M. &
St. P. R. Co., 1914, 13 R. C. 690.
Rutabagas.
275. Reasonableness of rates on rutabagas passed upon. Engesether v.
C. St. P. M. & 0. R. Co. et al, 1912, 8 R. G. 504.
Rye.
276. Reasonableness of rates on rye passed upon. Krouskop v. C.
M. & St. P. R. Co., 1910, 6 R. G. 178; Stevens v. C. Sc N. W. R. Co., 1914, 15
R. G. 524.
Salt.
277. Reasonableness of rates on salt passed upon. Kaufmann Sc Co.
V. W. <Sc. N. R. Co., 1911, 6. R. G. 497; Morton Salt Co. v. M. St. P. Sc S. S.
M. R. Co., 1911, 6 R. G. 499. .
Sand.
278. Reasonableness of rates on sand passed upon. Waukesha Lime
S: Stone Co. v. C. M. Sc St. P. R. Co. et al., 1912, 9 R. G. 347; So. Wis.
Sand & Gravel Co. et al. v. C. Sc N. W. R. Co., 1912, 10 R. G. 436; In re
Invest. Rates on Sand^etc. on C. M. Sc St. P. R. Co., 1912, 11 R. G. 98;
So. Wis. Sand Sc Gravel Co. v. C. M. Sc St. P. R. Co., 1913, 13 R. G. 380;
Moritz V. C. M. Sc St. P. R. Co., 1914, 13 R. G. 684; International Harvester
Corp. v. C. M. Sc St. P. R. Co., 1914, 15 R. G. 164; Waupaca Sand & Gravel
Co. V. Waupaca-G. B. R. Co. et al., 1914, 15 R. G. 482; Nordberg Mfg. Co.
V. C. M. Sc St. P. R. Co., 1915, 15 R. G. 648.
Scrap iron.
279. Reasonableness of rates on scrap iron passed upon. Benesch
Bros. V. C. Sc N. W. R. Co., 1909, 3 R. G. 383; Mayer v. I. C. R. Co. et al.,
1909, 4 R. G. 268; Block-Pollak Iron Co. v. C. M. Sc St. P. R. Co., 1910,
6 R. G. 205; 1911, 6 R. G. 548; Mayer v. C. Sc N. W. R. Co. et al., 1911, 8
R. G. 32S; Summit Stove Co. v. C. M. Sc St. P. R. Co., 1913, 12 R. G. 186;
Locke v. C. Sc N. W. R. Co., 1913, 13 R. G. 366.
Seed peas.
280. Reasonableness of rates on seed and dried peas passed upon.
Leonard Seed Co. v. C. St. P. M. Sc 0. R. Co., 1914, 14 R. G. 97.
Silos.
281. Reasonableness of rates on silos passed upon. Vesper Wood
Mfg. Co. V. G. B. Sc W. R. Co. et al, 1914, 15 R. G. 442.
Slabs.
282. Reasonableness of rates on slabs passed upon. Menasha Paper
Co. V. M. St. P. Sc S. S. M. R. Co., 1912, 9 R. G. 39.
Slag.
283. Reasonableness of rates on slag passed upon. International
Harvester Corp. v. C. M. Sc St. P. R. Co., 1914, 13 R. G. 640.
312 Rates-Railroad. — Reasonableness of in particular cases
Springs.
284. Reasonableness of rates on springs passed upon. Higgins Spring
iSc Axle Co. V. C. M. <Sc St. P. R. Co., 1909, 4 R. G. 384; 1911, 8 R. C. 36;
283; Higgins Spring & Axle Co. v. C. Sc N. W. R. Co., 1912, 9 R. G. 180.
Stone.
285. Reasonableness of rates on stone passed upon. Johns-Manville
Co. V. C. M. & St. P. R. Co., 1909, 4 R. G. 114; Schwoegler & Kelly v.
C. M. & St. P. R. Co., 1910, 5 R. G. 287, 635; Waukesha Lime & Stone
Co. V. M. St. P. & S. S. M. R. Co., 1912, 9 R. G. 167; Fargo v. C. M. <Sc
St. P. R. Co., 1914, 15 R. G. 162.
Stone paving blocks.
286. Reasonableness of rates on stone paving blocks passed upon.
Milwaukee Sand Stone Co. v. C. & N. W. R. Co., 1914, 13 R. G. 671.
Stone tailings.
287. Reasonableness of rates on stone tailings passed upon. Carl
Frontz v. Mineral Pt. & N. R. Co., 1914, 14 R. G. 217.
Structural iron.
- 288. Reasonableness of rates on structural iron passed upon. Pietsch
Iron Works, v. C. & N. W. R. Co., 1911, 6 R.* G. 540.
Sugar beets and beet pulp.
289. Reasonableness of rates on sugar beets and beet pulp passed upon.
Chippewa Sugar Co. et al. v. C. M. Sc St. P. R. Co. et al., 1906, 1 R. G. 258.
Tanbark.
290. Reasonableness of rates on tanbark passed upon. Albert
Trostel & Sons v. W. C. R. Co., 1908, 2 R. G. 761; Wright Lbr. Co. v. C. M.
& St. P. R. Co. et al., 1909, 4 R. G. 175; Barker & Stewart Lbr. Co. v.
C. & N. W. R. Co., 1912, 11 R. G. 141; Barker & Stewart Lbr. Co. v. C.
M. <Sc St. P. R. Co., 1913, 11 R. G. 537; Westboro Lbr. Co. v. M. St. P. <Sc
S. S. M. R. Co., 1913, 13 R. G. 378.
Ties and rails.
291. Reasonableness of rates on ties and rails passed upon. New
Dells Lbr. Co. v. C. St. P. M. & 0. R. Co., 1914, 14 R. G. 186.
Tile and brick.
292. Reasonableness of rates on tile and brick passed upon. Ringle
et al. V. C. M. <Sc St. P. R. Co. et al., 1911, 7 R. G. 170; Wis. Clay Mfrs.
Assn. V. C. M. & St. P. R. Co. et al, 1914, 13 R. G. 756.
Tobacco.
293. Reasonableness of rates on tobacco passed upon. American
Cigar Co. v. G. B. & W. R. Co. et al., 1908, 2 R. G. 807; Borden Co. v.
L. C. & S. E. R. Co. et al., 1913. 11 R. G. 439.
Rates-Railroad. — Reasonableness of in particular cases 313
Twine.
294. Reasonableness of rates on twine passed upon. Kraft, Radtke Sc
Quilling Co. v. C. M. & St. P. R. Co. ei al, 1913, 13 R. C. 393.
Waste lumber products.
295. Reasonableness of rates on waste lumber products passed upon.
In re Rates on Waste Lumber Products, 1906, 1 R. G. 291.
Whey butter.
296. Reasonableness of rates on whey butter passed upon. So. Wis.
Cheesemen's Protective Assn. v. Ry. Cos., 1906, 1 R. C. 143.
Wire fencing, barb wire, staples and nails.
297. Reasonableness of rates on wire fencing, barb wire, staples and
nails passed upon. Capital Fence Co. v. C. Sc N. W. R. Co. et al., 1913, 12
R. C. 756.
Wood (cord)
298. Reasonableness of rates on cordwood passed upon. In re Rates
on Cordwood, 1908, 2 R. C. 705; Harrison v. D. & W. R. Co., 1908, 2 R. G.
801; Whittet v. C. M. <Sc St. P. R. Co., 1910, 4 R. G. 480; Oshkosh Fuel Co.
V. C. & N. W. R. Co., 1910, 6 R. G. 226; Oshkosh Fuel Co. v. M. St. P. 6c
S. S. M. R. Co., 1911, 6 R. G. 669; Waukesha Lime & Stone Co. v. M. St.
P. & S. S. M. R. Co. et al, 1913, 13 R. G. 372; Waukesha Lime & Stone Co. v.
C. Sc N. W. R. Co. et al., 1914, 13 R. G. 650.
Wood (fuel)
299. Reasonableness of rate on fuel wood passed upon. Mace Lime
Co. V. C. Sc N. W. R. Co., 1909, 3 R. G. 590; Druecker v. C. Sc N. W. R. Co.,
1909, 3 R. G. 594; Barnes v. C. M. Sc St. P. R. Co. et al, 1910, 4 R. G. 478;
Oshkosh Fuel Co. v. C. M. Sc St. P. R. Co., 1910, 6 R. G. 199; Morgan v.
M. St. P. Sc S. S. M. R. Co., 1912, 9 R. G. 165; Streveler et al. v. Marathon
County R. Co. et al., 1912, 10 R. G. 409; Oshkosh Fuel Co. v. C. Sb N. W.
R. Co., 1913, 11 R. G. 400; Northern Wood Co. v. C. M. Sc St. P. R. Co.,
1913, 11 R. G. 706; Sullivan v. M. St. P. Sc S. S. M. R. Co., 1914, 13 R. G.
687; Miller v. C. Sc N. W. R. Co., 1914, 14 R. G. 707; Johnson Sc Hill Co.
V. M. St. P, Sc S. S. M. R. Co., 1914, 14 R. G. 752.
Wood (kiin)
300. Reasonableness of rates on kiln wood passed upon. In re Appl.
C. St. P. M. Sc 0. R. Co., 1905, 1 R. G. 16; Standard Lime Sc Stone Co. v.
CM.Sc St. P. R. Co. et al., 1912, 9 R. G. 228; Maxson Lbr. Co. v. C. Sc N.
W. R. Co., 1913, 11 R. G. 269; Waukesha Lime Sc Stone Co. v. M. St. P. Sc
S. S. M. R. Co. et al., 1913, 13 R. G. 372; Waukesha Lime Sc Stone Co. v.
C. Sc N. W. R. Co. et al, 1914, 13 R. G. 650.
Wood (pulp)
301. Reasonableness of rates on pulp wood passed upon. Island Paper
Co. v. W. C. R. Co., 1906, 1 R. G. 234; Dells Paper Sc Pulp Co. v. C. St.
P. M. Sc 0. R. Co., 1907, 2 R. G.;129; In re Rates on Pulp Wood, 1908, 2
R. G. 168; Pulp Wood Co. v. C. St. P. M. Sc 0. R. Co., 1908, 2 R. G. 250;
314 Rates-Railroad. — Reasonableness of in particular cases
Menasha Paper Co. v. C. M. Sc St. P. R. Co. et al., 1909, 3 R. G. 620;
Rhinelander Paper Co. v. M. St. P. & S. S. M. R. Co. et al., 1912, 9 R. C.
127; Wis. Pulp Sz Paper Mfrs. v. M. St. P. & S. S. M. R. Co., 1911, 8
R. C. 16; Rhinelander Paper Co. v. M. St. P. Sc S. S. M. R. Co., 1911, 8
R. C. 105; 1912, 9 R. C. Ill; Streveler et al. v. Marathon County R. Co. et
al, 1912, 10 R. C. 409; Pulp Wood Co. v. C. & N. W. R. Co., 1912, 11 R. C.
144; Pulp <Sc Paper Mfrs. Traffic Assn. v. C. &. N. W. R. Co. et al., 1913,
11 R. e. 365; Rhinelander Paper Co. v. M. St. P. & S. S. M. R. Co., 1913,
11 R. C. 393; Wausau Paper Mill Co. v. C. M. Sc St. P. R. Co., 1913, 11
R. C. 417; Pulp & Paper Mfrs. Traffic Assn. v. C. & N. W. R. Co. et al.,
1914, 13 R. C. 735; 15 R. G. 66; Rhinelander Paper Co. v. M. St. P. &
S. S. M. R. Co., 1914, 15 R. G. 171.
Wood (slab)
302. Reasonableness of rates on slab wood passed upon. Nelson-
Berry Lbr. Co. V. W. C. R. Co. et al, 1907, 2 R. G. 95; Oshkosh Fuel Co. v.
C. <Sc N. W. R. Co., 1910, 6 R. G. 222; Northern Wood Co. v. M. St. P. &
S. S. M. R. Co. etal, 1911, 8 R. G. 62; Waukesha Lime & Stone Co. v. M.
St. P. <Sc S. S. M. R. Co. et al, 1913, 13 R. G. 372; Waukesha Lime & Stone
Co. V. C. Sc N. W. R. Co. et al, 1914, 13 R. G. 650; Oshkosh Fuel Co. v.
C. Sc N. W. R. Co., 1914, 13 R. G. 775; Browndeer Lbr. & Fuel Co. v. G.
B. Sc W. R. Co., 1914, 14 R. G. 138.
Wrappers.
303. Reasonableness of rates on bottle wrappers passed upon. Oshkosh
Bottle Wrapper Co. v. C. M. Sc St. P. R. Co., 1909, 4 R. G. 333.
XXXIII. REDUGTION IN RATES.
Gradual reductions desirable.
304. It is frequently found that gradual reductions in rates are better
suited to commercial conditions than more sweeping ones. Pulp Sc Paper
Mfrs. Traffic Assn. v. C. Sc N. W. R. Co. et al, 1913, 11 R. G. 365.
XXXIV. RELATION OF RATES.
Adjustment for differences in cost of production.
305. While the practice of adjusting rates so as to offset differences
in the cost of production would ordinarily be out of line with public
policy as well as contrary to sound economic principles, the weaker pro-
ducers should be granted rates that are relatively as favorable as the rates
under which the stronger or better situated producers are shipping.
Ringle et al v. C. M. Sc St. P. R. Co. et al, 1911, 7 R. G. 170, 183.
Change of relation to which business has been adjusted.
306. The practice of charging a switching rather than a distance
tariff rate for transferring cars from one place to another within the yard
limits is one of long standing, and to which business conditions generally
have become adjusted. This practice, therefore, should not be changed
except for very good reasons. In fact, it is our opinion that it should not
Rates-Railroad. — Switching rates 315
be altered except when unreasonable or when found necessary and proper
in the more general readjustments of the freight rates, or because of other
commercial conditions. Sinaiko Bros. v. C. M. Sc Si. P. R. Co., 1910, 4
R. C. 432, 436.
Rate adjustments — Disturbance of rate adjustment through
change in concentration rate.
307. Any just change in the rate situation with respect to concen-
tration rates would necessarily involve alterations in both the rates on
the material in, and in the rates on the products out. F ergot v. C. & N. W.
R. Co., 1909, 4 R. C. 248, 253-254.
Disturbance of rate adjustment through withdrawal of con-
centration rate.
308. A considerable proportion of the- rate adjustments in this state
are based upon stoppages in transit; that is, such privileges are granted
on many of the leading commodities of commerce; but, as an offset to
this, the local rates, and often also the rates from concentrating and from
manufacturing points out to the markets, are kept at a high level. The
latter rates are usually high enough to make up for deficiencies in the form-
er. As long as this condition exists, it would hardly seem to be fair to
raise one of these rates without also lowering the other. At any rate no
such changes should be made unless there are good reasons for it. Coch-
rane Co. V. C. M. Sc St. P. R. Co., 1908, 3 R. C. 1, 29; Arpin Hardwood
Lbr. Co. V. C. St. P. M.Sc 0. R. Co., 1910, 5 R. G. 441, 446.
Relation on the various classes of freight.
309. The relation which the rates on the various classes of freight and
the various commodities ought to bear to each other are largely questions
of classification. It depends upon such factors as the value of the articles,
their bulk in proportion to their weight, the risks involved, the nature of
the articles generally, and on many other factors. Wis. Pulp Sc Paper
Mfrs. V. C. Sc N. W. R. Co. et al., 1910, 6. R. C. 436, 455.
XXXV. SPECIAL SERVICE RATES.
Unusual facilities and equipment.
310. A carrier may charge for the special service rendered in transport-
ing goods which require unusual facilities and equipment, compensatory
rates which cover both the cost of the service and the risk incurred in the
service growing out of the nature of the goods carried. Ellman v. I. C.
R. Co., 1912, 9 R. C. 240, 248.
XXXVI. SWITCHING RATES.
Absorption of charges.
311. Matter of absorption of charges passed upon. Blodgett Milling
Co. V. C. Sc N. W. R. Co., 1912, 10 R. C. 377; So. Wis. Sand Sc Gravel Co.
et al. V. C. Sc N. W. R. Co., 1912, 10 R. C. 436; Waukesha Lime Sc Stone
Co. V. C. Sc N. W. R. Co. et al., 1913, 13 R. G. 368; Waukesha Lime Sc Stone
316 Rates-Railroad. — Switching rates
Co. V. M. St. P. Sc S. S. M. R. Co. et al., 1913, 13 R. C. 372; Waukesha
Lime & Stone Co. v. C. & N. W. R. Co. et al, 1914, 13 R. C. 650; Callaway
Fuel Co. V. C. & N. W. R. Co. et al., 1914, 13 R. C. 694; Blodgett Milling
Co. V. C. & N. W. R. Co., 1914, 13 R. C. 782; Barkhausen Coal & Dock Co.
et al. V. G. B. & W. R. Co., 1914, 14 R. C. 172.
Internal switching rates.
312. The charge for switching service where the movement is within
the yard Hmits and between different parts of the same plant depends
largely on local conditions. Columbus Canning Co. v. C. M. Sc St. P. R.
Co., 1913, 12 R. G. 137, 138.
Reasonableness of switching rates in particular cases.
313. Reasonableness of switching rates passed upon. County of
Milwaukee v. C. M. Sc St. P. R. Co., 1909, 3 R. C. 377; Duluth-Superior
Millg. Co. et al. v. N. P. R. Co., 1910, 5 R. C. 598; In re M. St. P. Sc S. S.
M. R. Co's Waupaca Switching Rates, 1913, 11 R. C. 485; Summit Stove
Co. V. C. M. Sc St. P. R. Co., 1913, 12 R. C. 186; Connor Lbr. Sc Land Co. v.
Laona Sc N. R. Co. et al., 1913, 12 R. C. 761; Waukesha Lime Sc Stone Co.
V. M. St. P. Sc S. S. M. R. Co. et al, 1913, 13 R. C. 372; Waukesha Lime Sc
Stone Co. v. C. M. Sc St. P. R. Co. et al., 1914, 13 R. G. 534; Waukesha
Lime Sc Stone Co. v. C. Sc N. W. R. Co. et al., 1914, 13 R. G. 650; Callaway
Fuel Co. V. C. Sc N. W. R. Co. et al., 1914, 13 R. G. 694; Mason-Donaldson
Lbr. Co. V. M. St. P. Sc S. S. M. R. Co., 1914, 14 R. G. 82; Rusk Box Sc
Furniture Co. v. M. St. P. Sc S. S. M. R. Co., 1914, 14 R. G. 136; In re
C. M. Sc St. P. Switching Rates in Milwaukee, 1914, 14 R. G. 261; Peshtigo
Lbr. Co. V. C. M. Sc St. P. R. Co., 1914, 15 R. G. 43; Mason-Donaldson
Lbr. Co. V. M. St. P. Sc S. S. M. R. Co., 1914, 15 R. G. 388;. Kieckhefer
Box Co. V. C. M. Sc St. P. R. Co., 1915, 15 R. G. 564.
Reciprocal switching rate.
314. In general, in order for a reciprocal rate to be granted, it is
necessary that the industries and the volume of traffic originating from
them be distributed fairly equally between the roads at the junction point.
In re M. St. P. Sc S. S. M. R. Co's Waupaca Switching Rates, 1913, 11 R. G.
485, 488.
315. A reciprocal rate, or the charge as between carriers for switching
service should not differ from that rate quoted the individual shipper for
the same service, and either rates should be sufficient to pay the costs
incurred and contribute in some part, large or small, depending upon other
conditions, to the return of the carrier upon its investment. Waukesha
Lime Sc Stone Co. v. C. M. Sc St. P. R. Co. et al., 1914, 13 R. G. 534, 536.
Reductions due to service performed by shipper.
316. In view of the provisions of sec. 1797-22.2 of the statutes, the
general state of industry in the Milwaukee Terminal District and other
facts brought out in the instant case, the reduction in rates asked for in
behalf of shippers doing their own spotting and hauling cannot be granted
for the reason that it would not operate alike upon all shippers. In re
C. M. Sc St. P. Switching Rates inJMilwaukee, 1914, 14 R. G. 261, 281-283.
Rates-Railroad. — Trainload rates 317
Substitution of distance tariff rate for switching charge.
317. Carriers ordered to apply switching charge instead of distance
tariff rate. Clark v. C. M. & St. P. R. Co., 1907, 1 R. C. 590; Sinaiko
Bros. V. C. M. Sc Sf. P. R. Co., 1910, 4 R. C. 432; 5 R. C. 426; Superior
Crushed Rock Co. v. C. St. P. M. & 0. R. Co., 1910, 5 R. C. 449; Western
Ind. Constr. Co. v. C. M. & St. P. R. Co., 1911, 8 R. C. 309; Teasdale v.
C. Sz N. W. R. Co. et al., 1912, 9 R. C. 66; Gillette-0' Leary Co. v. M. St.
P. & S. S. M. R. Co., 1913, 11 R. G. 276; Columbus Canning Co. v. C. M. Sc
St. P. R. Co., 1913, 12 R. C. 137; Summit Stove Co. u. C. M. Sz St. P. R.
Co., 1913, 12 R. C. 186; Milwaukee Structural Steel Co. v. C. M. & St.
P. R. Co., 1914, 13 R. C. 673; Rhinelander Paper Co. v. M. St. P. & S. S.
M. R. Co., 1914, 15 R. G. 171.
Substitution of general switching charge for commodity switch-
ing charge.
318. Apphcation of general switching charge instead of commodity
switching charge held unreasonable. Superior Crushed Rock Co. v. C.
St. P. M. & 0. R. Co., 1910, 6 R. G. 219.
Substitution of switching charge for commodity rate.
319. Application of switching charge instead of commodity rate held
unreasonable. Morse v. C. M. & St. P. R. Co., 1911, 6 R. G. 531.
Transferring car from one line to another.
320. Under the provisions of sec. 1797-11, ch. 362, laws of 1905, as
that section is amended, it was the duty of the respondent to receive the
car in question and switch and deliver the same on its team track, it being
entitled to receive a reasonable compensation for the service requested.
Clark V. C. M. Sc St. P. R. Co., 1907, 1 R. G. 590, 598.
XXXVII. TERMINAL GHARGE.
Establishment of terminal charge.
321. Terminal charge established. Plumb Sc Nelson Co. v. W. C.
R. Co. et al., 1906, 1 R. G. 19.
XXXVIII. TRAINLOAD RATES.
Discriminatory tendency of trainload rates.
322. Trainload rates have already been condemned by this Com-
mission although there has been no occasion heretofore to pass directly
upon their legality. Edward Mines Lbr. Co. v. C. St. P. M. Sc 0. R. Co,
1908, 2 R. G. 390-391; Heinemann Lbr. Co. v. C. M. Sc St. P. R. Co., 1912,
9 R. G. 281-283. The same principle has been laid down by the interstate
commerce commission in several decisions. {Carstens Packing Co. v.
Oregon S. L. R. Co., 1909, 17 I. G. G. R. 324; Anaconda Copper Mining Co.
V. C. Sc E. R. Co., 1910, 19 I. G. G. R. 592.) Nor. Hemlock Sc Hardw'd Mfrs,
Assn. V. C. Sc N. W. R. Co., 1913, 12 R. G. 241, 245; Connor Lbr. Sc Land.
Co. V. Laona Sc N. R. Co. et al., 1913, 12 R. G. 761, 765.
318 Rates-Street Railway. — In general
RATES— STREET RAILWAY.
Discrimination in street railway rates, see Discrimination, 54-64.
I. IN GENERAL.
II. COMMUTATION ZONE RATES.
III. CUSTOMARY RATES.
IV. FARE LIMITS.
V. JOINT OR THROUGH RATES.
VI. MAKING RATES— ELEMENTS CONSIDERED.
VII. MINIMUM FARES.
VIII. REASONABLENESS OF RATES— MATTERS CONSIDERED IN
DETERMINING REASONABLENESS.
IX. REASONABLENESS OF RATES IN PARTICULAR CASES.
X. TRANSFERS.
XI. ZONE SYSTEM RATES.
L IN GENERAL,
Effect of Railroad Commission Law on existing rates.
1. It is contended that ch. 362, laws 1905, has superseded the contract
involved in this suit and that therefore the contract no longer has any
binding force or effect. We do not think so. The statute worked no
change in existing rates. It simply provided that all rates should be
reasonable, and left to the Railroad Commission the power to determine
the fact as to whether or not a given rate was reasonable. When that
determination was reached the law became operative upon the particular
rate called in question, and the rate arrived at then became the lawful
rate and continued so until set aside in the manner provided by law.
* * * Until that determination is made, the contract is in force. When
it is made, the contract is superseded, if the rate is changed. The Com-
mission has ample authority to proceed upon its own motion. (City of
Manitowoc v. Manitowoc & N. Tr. Co., 1911, 145 Wis. 13, 29.) City of
Neenah u. Wis. Tr. Lt. H. Sc P. Co., et al., 1911, 6 R. C. 398, 400.
Power of state to regulate rates.
2. The Commission has the power to vary a rate fixed in a special
franchise gtanted by a municipality to a street railway company. {City
of Manitowoc v. Manitowoc & N. Tr. Co., 1911, 145 Wis. 13, 29-30).
City of Neenah v. Wis. Tr. Lt. H. <Sc P. Co. et al., 1911, 6 R. C. 400, 401.
3. Ch. 362 of the laws of 1905, known as the Railroad Commission
Law, provides that the charge made for any service rendered or to be
rendered in the transportation of persons or property or for any service
in connection therewith, shall be reasonable and just, and prohibits and
declares unlawful every unjust and unreasonable charge for such service.
The Railroad Commission is empowered to carry out the provisions of
this law by holding hearings, conducting investigations, and determining
and establishing reasonable charges. City of Milwaukee v. T. M. E. R. &
L, Co., 1912, 10 R. C. 1, 11; Cusick et al. v. T. M. E. R. <Sc L. Co. et al.,
1912, 10 R. C. 314, 335.
Rates-Street Ry. — Making, rates — elements considered 319
II. COMMUTATION ZONE RATES.
Carrier to issue commutation zone rate tickets.
4. The Commutation zone tickets ordered in the present proceeding
will effect a reasonable reduction in fare for the regular patron. By their
use a passenger will be enabled to ride through the greater part of the
village for a nickel fare, while the through fares will still conform to the
distance principle. Sold through the conductors in units small enough
to be within the reach of all, they should be preferable to the system of
mileage books suggested. However, the company is ordered to rearrange
the zones of the line in question, so as to place. the limits practically a
mile apart, and cause the short zone to be at the end of the line. In re
Milwaukee Suburban cfc Inferurban Ry. Rates, 1914, 15 R. C. 330, 341, 342.
III. CUSTOMARY RATES.
Customary rates not necessarily reasonable.
5. The contention made by the respondent that no reduction in the
rate of fare is permissible on the ground that the usual and regular fare^
of street railways in cities of a similar size is 5 cts., does not seem tenable.
Superior Comml. Club et al. v. Duluth Street Ry. Co., 1912, 11 R. C. 1, 29.
IV. FARE LIMITS.
Extension of single fare limits.
6. Single fare limits ordered extended. Cusick et al. v. T: M. E. R.
<Sc L. Co. et al., 1912, 10 R. C. 314; Koenig et al. v. T. M. E. R. <Sc L. Co.
et al., 1912, 10 R. C. 337; Village of East Milwaukee v. T. M. E. R. <Sc L.
Co. et al., 1912, 10 R. C. 358; In re Milm. Suburban & Interurban Ry.
Rates, 1914, 13 R..C. 475.
V. JOINT OR THROUGH RATES.
Establishment of.
7. Joint rates established by Commission. City of Neenah v. Wis.
Tr. Li. H. <Sc P. Co. et al., 1910, 6 R. C. 398; 1911, 6 R. C. 690; Cusick
et al. V. T. M. E. R. & L. Co. et al., 1912, 10 R. C. ^U; Koenig et al. v.
T. M. E. R. & L. Co. et al, 1912, 10 R. C. 337; Village of East Milw. u.
T. M. E. R. Sc L. Co. et al., 1912, 10 R. C. 358; In re Milw. Suburban &
Interurban Ry. Rates, 1914, 13 R. C. 475.
VI. MAKING RATES— ELEMENTS CONSIDERED.
Cost of service.
8. It has been contended that the basic rate in the instant case
should be placed upon a cost-of-service basis. When the conditions
prevailing on the interurban system as indicated by the passenger density
per car-mile are considered, however, it seems best to place the rate at a
figure lower than the cost of service would demand so as to encourage
320 Rates-Street Ry. — Making rates — elements considered
the passenger density to increase sufficiently to bring the revenues to the
point where they will bring an adequate return above all expenses. In re
Milw. Suburban Sc Interurban Ry. Rates, 1914, 13 R. G. 475, 488-489.
Financial conditions.
9. Facts and circumstances other than financial conditions, such as
value of the service, uniformity, existing and future possible traffic, etc.,
must undoubtedly be considered when single fare extensions are in ques-
tion. In the instant case no good reasons appear for abandoning the
general basis employed in former cases. Recent developments, however,
indicate that it is justifiable from an economic as well as from a legal
point of view to lay somewhat more emphasis upon financial conditions.
In re Milwaukee Suburban Sc Interurban Ry. Rates, 1914, 15 R. C. 330,
335.
Nature of transportation business.
10. The nature of the transportation business is such that the demand
for simpUcity, uniformity and stabihty is necessarily controlling because
even a slight variation in basic rates would open the way to uncertainty in
the minds of the riding public and would result in personal and local
discrimination. In re Milw. Suburban & Interurban Ry. Rates, 1914,
13 R. C. 475, 489-490.
Traffic conditions.
11. It has been contended that the patrons of those separate lines or
sections of lines having a higher traffic density and operating upon a
better revenue basis should be granted fares lower than the fares computed
upon a mileage basis. It is difficult, however, to see the justice of estab-
lishing such fares, especially when it is the object of this revision of existing
rates to abohsh, so far as practicable for the present, all special fares
involving local discrimination, and to bring about simplicity, uniformity
and stability in the rate schedules applying to these lines by disregarding
any difference in revenues or operating conditions. In re Milw. Suburban
<Sc Interurban Ry. Rates, 1914, 13 R. G. 475, 489.
12. A uniform commutation rate is essential to retain existing and
develop future traffic, and this defect in respondents' schedules, as
authorized by the order in question, must be remedied. Due considera-
tion being given to the traffic and financial conditions, it is considered
that thirty tickets for 50 cts. will be equitable and convenient. In re
Milwaukee Suburban Sc Interurban Ry. Rates, 1914, 15 R. G. 330, 339.
VII. MINIMUM FARES.
Reasonableness of.
13. Minimum fares find their justification in grounds of public
policy and in transportation costs, and 5 cts. is a logical minimum under
existing conditions. In re Milwaukee Suburban Sc Interurban Ry. Rates,
1914, 15 R. G. 330, 348.
Rates-Street Ry. — Reasonableness of — matters considered 321
VIII. REASONABLENESS OF RATES— MATTERS CONSIDERED
IN DETERMINING REASONABLENESS.
Comparative data.
14. Definite conclusions as to what constitutes the customary charge
or the value of the service, when based upon generalized data of the
character presented in the present case, are always difficult. Compari-
sons are likely to be misleading unless they are accompanied by a careful
consideration of conditions and facts in each particular case. City of
'Milwaukee v. T. M. E. R. cfc L. Co., 1912, 10 R. C. 1, 24-25.
Cost of service.
15. In the matter of reasonableness of rates, the Commission has
always held that public utilities, for adequate service and under normal
conditions, are ordinarily entitled to rates that will cover reasonable
amounts for operating expenses, including depreciation and interest and
profit on a fair valuation of the property used and useful in serving the
public. City of Milwaukee v. T. M. E. R. Sc L. Co., 1912, 10 R. C. 1, 85.
Allowance for paving to be constructed in the future.
16. It does not seem necessary to provide for paving costs in the
distant future as conditions at that time may have changed considerably,
and to provide for the paving work which may reasonably be expected
within the near future, say four or five years, is no doubt all that can be
reasonably expected here. In re Service of T. M. E. R. Sc L. Co. in
Milwaukee, 1913, 13 R. C. 178, 233.
Decrease in earnings due to quantity rate on tickets prescribed in
previous order of Commission.
17. Allowance is made in the instant case for the reduction of
earnings resulting from the provisions of the order in City of Milwaukee v.
T. M. E. R. <k L. Co., 1912, 10 R. G. 1, 305, which requires the sale of
thirteen tickets for 50 cts. In re Service of T. M. E. R. Sd L. Co. in
Milwaukee, 1913, 13 R. C. 178, 235-236.
Financial condition of company.
18. The propriety of the requested modification must be determined
by consideration of changes affecting the company's financial condition
which have occurred since December 31, 1911, as the Commission's
ord-er was based upon conditions then existing and knowledge then at
hand. In re Modification Milwaukee Urban Fare Decision, 1915, 15 R. C.
724, 751.
Investment.
19. The value of the property used and useful for street railway
purposes in Milwaukee upon which the company is entitled to a fair
return, is the most important single factor affecting the determination of
whether the company's present rate of fare is unreasonable and excessive.
City of Milwaukee v. T. M. E. R. <k L. Co., 1912, 10 R. G. 1, 63.
11
322 Rates-Street Rg. — Reasonableness of — matters considered
Relation of urban, suburban and interurban earnings and ex-
penses.
20. Suburban system earnings and expenses can seldom, if ever,
when as closely cpnnected with the city system activities as in Milwaukee,
be considered independently in the adjustment of fgires or modification of
service, and this principle was recognized in the decision in question, and
in the subsidiary cases. As a rule, and in- the present case, no such
intimate relation exists between the activities of interurban cities and
the terminal city as between suburbs and their urban center, and the
contention that in the present case the interurban railways leading from
the city should be considered in connection with a distribution of the
profits of urban operation is not tenable. In re Modfication Milwaukee
Urban Fare Decision, 1915, 15 R. C. 724, 733, 734.
IX. REASONABLENESS OF RATES IN PARTICULAR CASES.
Reasonableness determined.
21. The question of reasonableness of street railway rates was passed
upon in the following cases: City of Milwaukee v. T. M. E. R. & L. Co.,
1907, 1 R. C. 662; Fullmer v. Wausan Street R. Co., 1909, 3 R. C. 520;
1910, 5 R. C. 114; In re AppL Waupaca EL Lt. & Ry. Co., 1910, 5 R. C.
190; City of Milwaukee v. T. M. E. R. & L. Co., 1912, 10 R. C. 1; Superior
Comml. Club et al. v. Duluth Street Ry. Co., 1912, 11 R. C. 1; Rodolph et al.
V. So. Wis. Ry. Co., 1913, 12 R. C. 49; In re Service of T. M. E. R. Sc
L. Co. in Milwaukee, 1913, 13 R. C. 178; In re Milw. Suburban <&: Inter-
urban Ry. Rates, 1914, 13 R. G. 475; 15 R. C. 330; In re Modification
Milwaukee Urban Fare Decision, 1915, 15 R. C. 724.
X. TRANSFERS.
Transfer privileges on payment of single fare.
22. Under the order of the Commission in City of Milwaukee v. T.
M. E. R. & L. Co., 1912, 8 W. R. C. R. 535, there is at present effective
a system of double transfers over the 16th street viaduct, one of the
respondent company's crosstown lines. Under the present circumstances
it does not appear necessary to extend the use of the double transfer.
In re Double Transfers in the City of Milwaukee, 1912, 10 R. C. 352.
23. In order to facilitate travel and relieve congestion in the down-
town district, it is now necessary that the matter of double transfers
should receive general consideration. The company should make a
study of the matter and extend the double transfer system where it is
necessary to secure the desired results, and if this is not accomplished
in a satisfactory manner, it will be necessary for the Commission to make
further investigations and formally consider this question. In re Service
of T. M. E. R. <Sc L. Co. in Milwaukee, 1913, 13 R. C. 178, 213.
Rates-Telephone 323
XL ZONE SYSTEM RATES.
Five-cent zones.
24. The so-called 5-cent zone system of suburban and interurban
rates in use on many interurban electric railways is unscientific and
inequitable because of the unequal zone distances used, the concessions
made to favored localities and favored classes of passengers at the expense
of other localities and other classes of passengers and the consequent
shifting of costs, irk the form of excessive rates, onto patrons in the localities
or classes discriminated against. In re Milw. Suburban So Interurban
Ry. Rates, 1914, 13 R. G. 475, 482-484.
Single-fare zones.
25. The question of reasonableness in establishing a certain boundary
line for single fares is one which must be reviewed on its merits alone,
and can be resolved only after a careful consideration of the many factors
therein involved. Pollworth Co. v. T. M. E. R. Sc L. Co., 1909,
3 R. C. 392, 399.
26. Concerning the question of zone system rates the conclusion has
been reached that, for a city and its suburbs which does not cover a greater
area than Milwaukee and in which the population and industries are
distributed as in this city, the best system of rates, for the present at
least, is probably a system under which there is but one fare zone for an
area varying from about four to five miles from the business center of
the city, and under which only one fare, based on the average cost, is
charged within this zone. City of Milwaukee v. T. M. E. R. &, L. Co.,
1912, 10 R. G. 1.
RATES— TELEPHONE.
Deposits to insure payment of bills, see Rules and Regulations, 21-26.
Discounts for prompt payment of bills, see Rules and Regulations,
14-19.
Discrimination in telephone rates, see Discrimination, 86-100.
Penalties for delinquent payment of bills, see Rules and Regulations,
14-18, 20.
I. ALTERNATIVE RATES.
II. AUTOMOPHONES.
ill. BILLING.
IV. BUSINESS AND RESIDENCE RATES.
V. CLASSIFICATION OF SUBSCRIBERS.
VI. COMBINATION BUSINESS AND RESIDENCE RATES.
VII. CONCESSIONS IN RATES.
VIII. CONNECTION CHARGES.
IX. CONTRACT RATES.
X. CONTRACTS.
XI. DESK TELEPHONES.
XII. EQUIPMENT RENTAL.
XIIL EXCESS RADIUS CHARGE.
XIV. EXCHANGE RADIUS.
324
Rates- Telephone
XV. EXTENSION BELLS.
XVI. EXTENSION TELEPHONES.
XVII. EXTRA LISTING.
XVIII. FREE OR REDUCED RATE SERVICE.
XIX. FREE TOLL SERVICE.
XX. HARMONIC RINGING BELLS.
XXI. JOINT USER RATES.
XXII. MAKING RATES— ELEMENTS CONSIDERED.
XXIII. MEASURED RATE.
XXIV. NON-SUBSCRIBER CHARGES.
XXV. "OTHER LINE" CHARGES.
XXVI. PARTY LINE RATES. •
XXVII. PHYSICAL CONNECTION.
XXVIII. PROTECTED WIRES.
XXIX. REASONABLENESS OF ADVANCE IN RATES IN PAR-
TICULAR CASES.
XXX. REASONABLENESS OF RATES— MATTERS CONSIDERED
IN DETERMINING REASONABLENESS.
XXXI. REASONABLENESS OF RATES IN PARTICULAR CASES.
XXXII. RECEIVING LINES.
XXXIII. RECONNECTION CHARGES.
XXXIV. REMOVAL CHARGES.
XXXV. SHORT TIME RATES.
XXXVI. SILENT RINGING TELEPHONES.
XXXVII. SPECIAL CONTRACT RATES.
XXXVIII. SWITCHING RATES.
XXXIX. TOLL DROPS.
XL. TOLL OR LONG DISTANCE CONNECTION RATES.
XLI. TOLL RATES.
XLII. TOLL RATES, OPTIONAL.
I. ALTERNATIVE RATES.
See post, 77.
II. AUTOMOPHONES.
Rates for,
1. Rates for automophones established. No extra charge to be
made for installation. In re Appl. Troy Sc Honey Creek Tel. Co., 1914,
14 R. C. 157.
III. BILLING.
Ownership of premises immateriaL
2. Application for authority to treat patrons who have two phones
installed, not on the same pair in cable, as two separate parties, that is,
to render bills for each installation as a separate patron, regardless of the
fact that the same person pays for service of such phones. This seems to
be a reasonable rule. There appears to be no more reason why a whole-
sale rate should be given to patrons with more than one phone, than
there would be to consider the amount of water used in two separate
residences, owned by the same party, as a single quantity in fixing the
charge. In re Appl. Evansville Tel. Exch., 1911, 6 R. G. 639, 645.
Rates-Telephone. — Combination business and residence 325
IV. BUSINESS AND RESIDENCE RATES.
Rates for premises occupied by business and residence.
3. Where the place of business and the residence of a subscriber are
in the same premises and no telephone is installed in the place of business,
the business rate should be charged for the telephone installed in the
residence. In re Free and Reduced Rate Tel. Service, 1908, 2 R. C, 521,
544; In re Appl. Pewaukee-Sussex Tel. Co., 1911, 7 R. C. 465, 475.
V. CLASSIFICATION OF SUBSCRIBERS.
Classification permissible.
4. The classification of telephone subscribers into "residence" and
"business" subscribers, with higher rates for the latter than for the former,
is la\^"ful and permissible, not only from the point of view of the greater
cost of providing the business service, but also because of the coordinate
principle that a lower residence rate is necessary in order that a sufficiently
large number of subscribers may be secured to make the telephone
valuable to business subscribers. It follows that an extension of this
classification may be made so as to make special provision for schools,
hospitals, churches, lodges, Christian associations and similar bodies
and organizations, provided that the two principles of cost and of service
to other subscribers are continually kept in view. In re Free and Reduced
Rate Tel. Service, 1908, 2 R. C. 521, 542; In re Badger Tel. Co., 1908, 3 R. C.
98, 105; Payne et al. v. Wis. Tel. Co., 1909, 4 R. C. 1, 57; In re Appl.
Milton and Milton Jet. Tel. Co., 1911, 6 R. C. 542, 546; In re Appl.
Pewaukee-Sussex Tel. Co., 1911, 7 R. C. 465, 470-471.
VI. COMBINATION BUSINESS AND RESIDENCE RATES.
Application of,
5. Where a business and a residence phone are on the same line, it
seems that the two-party business and residence rates may be applied,
rather than a special rate dealing with such service as a separate class.
In re Appl. Plymouth Tel. Exch., 1912, 9 R. C. 169, 177; In re Appl.
Farmers' Tel. Exch. of Richland Center, 1912, 9 R. C. 369, 377; In re Appl.
People's Tel. Co., 1913, 11 R. C. 499, 506.
Discriminatory tendency of.
6. The so-called combination business and residence rate should not
be enforced because of its discriminatory tendency. In re Appl. Bloomer
Tel. Co., 1909, 4 R. C. 259, 265.
7. A so-called combined rate for a business telephone and a residence
telephone, which is less than the sum of the regularly published residence
and business rates, is unlawful. In re Free and Reduced Rate Tel. Service,
1908, 2 R. C. 521, 544; In re Appl. People's Tel. Co., 1913, 11 R. C. 499,
506.
326 Rates-Telephone. — Concessions in rates
VII. CONCESSIONS IN RATES.
Reasonableness of.
8. Concessions in telephone rates can often reasonably be made to
certain kinds of subscribers because of the value of connections therewith
to other subscribers. Olson et al. v. Wis. Tel. Co., 1909, 3 R. C. 440, 450.
% VIII. CONNECTION .CHARGES.
Reasonableness of.
9. Connection charges for subscribers not having direct connection
with long distance lines held unreasonable. Connor et al. v. Marsh et al.,
1911, 6 R. C. 589.
IX. CONTRACT RATES.
Status of.
10. The question was raised as to whether a telephone company is
obliged to continue in force a contract, indefinite in term, wherein the
rates for service are less than the schedule of rates established by order of
the Commission. Held: That sec. 1797m-91, ch. 499, laws of 1907,
applies to valid existing contracts providing for the rendering of services
for a fixed period; that it does not apply to contracts amounting to in-
definite subscription agreements which may be terminated by either party
on suflficient notice. In re Constr. of sec. 1797 m-91, ch. 499, Laws 1907,
1907, 2 R. C. 113.
11. Where special rates have been in effect under individual valid
contracts, such rates cease to be in effect with the termination of the con-
tract, and the regular schedule rates should be collected after the termina-
tion of such contract. Where such individual contracts are terminable
at the will of the company, it is the duty of the company to terminate
them straightway and to establish, in place of the special rates therein
provided, the regular published schedule of rates. Where one class of
service is lawfully superseded by another class of service, it is lawful to
collect that rate which is the regular published schedule rate for the class
of service now given. In re Free and Reduced Rate Tel. Service, 1908,
2 R. C. 521, 545.
X. CONTRACTS.
Yearly contracts.
12. Signing of yearly contract required. In re Appl. West Menasha
Tel. Co., 1914, 15 R. C. 224.
XI. DESK TELEPHONES.
Installation of.
13. Charge established for changing from wall to desk telephone or
vice versa. In re Appl. Plymouth Tel. Exch., 1912, 9 R. C. 169.
Rates-Telephone. — Extension telephones 327
XII. EQUIPMENT RENTAL.
Rental paid by utility.
14. Rental to be paid to subscribers for use of equipment owned by
them. Knapp et al. v. Matfeson Tel. Co., 1912, 11 R. C. 180; In re Appl.
Rockland Tel. Co., 1913, 11 R. C. 402; In re Appl. Muscoda Miit. Tel.
Co., 1913, 11 R. C. 666; In re Appl. Mosinee Tel. Co., 1914, 14 R. C. 709.
XIII. EXCESS RADIUS CHARGE.
Establishment of.
15. Extra charge to subscribers located outside regular exchange
limits established. In re Appl. Ozaukee-Washington Co. Tel. Co., 1911,
7 R. C. 428; In re Appl. Tomahawk Lt. Tel. Sc Impr. Co., 1913, 13 R. C. 340.
XIV. EXCHANGE RADIUS.
Determination of.
16. Ordinarily it would probably be true that a city should be con-
sidered as a unit for purposes of telephone service, but in the present
case the conditions appear to be so exceptional as to justify some departure
from this policy. The city limits seem to be very much out of proportion
to the population of the city and to the area which is really built up. Be-
cause the city limits happen to be out of all proportion to the size of the
city itself it hardly seems reasonable to require the telephone utility to
serve all patrons within those limits if such patrons are not really city
subscribers in a practical sense. In re Appl. Tomahawk Lt. Tel. & Impr.
Co., 1913, 13 R. C. 340, 342-343. v
XV. EXTENSION BELLS.
Rates for.
17. Rates for extension bells established. In re Appl. Oostburg Tel.
Co., 1910, 4 R. C. 407; In re Appl. Interurban Tel. Co., 1910, 6 R. C. 187;
In re Appl. Wautoma & Mt. Morris F. Tel. Co., 1911, 6 R. C. 419; In re
Appl. Plymouth Tel. Exch., 1912, 9 R. C. 169; In re Appl. Farmers' Tel.
Exch. of Richland Center, 1912, 9 R. C. 369; In re Appl. Ashland Home
Tel. Co., 1912, 9 R. C. 489; In re Appl. Muscoda Mut. Tel. Co., 1913, 11
R. C. 666; In re Appl. Farmers' Tel Co. of Beetown, 1914, 13 R. C. 540;
In re Appl Troy & Honey Creek Tel Co., 1914, 14 R. C. 157; In re Appl.
Marion Sc Northern Tel Co., 1914. 15 R. C. 552; In re Appl Clark Co.
Tel Co., 1915, 15 R. C. 822.
XVI. EXTENSION TELEPHONES.
Rates for.
18. Rates for extension telephones established. In re Appl. Oostburg
Tel Co., 1910, 4 R. C. 407; In re Appl Interurban Tel Co., 1910, 6 R. C.
187; In re Appl Wautoma &: Mt. Morris F. Tel Co., 1911, 6 R. C. 419;
328 Rates-Telephone. — Extension telephones
In re A p pi. Milton & Milton Jet. Tel. Co., 1911, 6 R. C. 542; In re Platte-
ville, Rewey & Ellenboro Tel. Co., 1911, 7 R. C. 608; In re Appl. Plymouth
Tel. Exch., 1912, 9 R. C. 169; In re Appl Farmers' Tel. Exch. of Richland
Center, 1912, 9 R. C. 369; In re Appl Brodhead Tel. Co., 1912, 9 R. G.
383; In re Appl. Ashland Home Tel Co., 1912, 9 R. C. 489; In re Appl
Muscoda Mut. Tel Co., 1913, 11 R. C. 666; City of Merrill v. Wis. Tel
Co., 1913, 12 R. C. 490; In re Appl Farmers' Tel. Co. of Beetown, 1914,
13 R. C. 540; In re Appl. Troy & Honey Creek Tel Co., 1914, 14 R. G.
157; In re Appl. Ripon United Tel Co., 1914, 14 R. G. 427; In re Appl
Marion <Sc Northern Tel Co., 19J4, 15 R. G. 552; In re Appl Clark Co.
Tel. Co., 1915, 15 R. G. 822.
Relation of rates for business and residence extension sets.
19. On the basis of the average investment, business and residence
extension sets stand approximately on the same level, while on the basis
of the direct cost of operation, business sets doubtless cost appreciably
more. On the basis of the value of the service, business extension sets
should doubtless take a higher rate than residence extensions. For the
exchange under consideration, the relation of 50 and 25 cts. per month for
business and residence sets, respectively, is about correct. In re Appl
Oostburg Tel Co., 1910, 4 R. G. 407, 411.
XVII. EXTRA LISTING.
Charge for.
20. Gharge for extra listing in telephone directory established. In re
Appl Clark Co. Tel Co., 1915, 15 R. G. 822.
XVIII. FREE OR REDUGED RATE SERVIGE.
As basis for physical connection.
21. The question raised has not been one of public. necessity, but of
the public necessity for free service, and in this case the Commission is
unable to rule in favor of a physical connection under these conditions.
Farmers' Union Tel. Co. v. Ml Vernon Tel Co., 1914, 15 R. G. 286-287.
Definition of.
22. The prohibitions of the law embrace free local service in public
pay stations, which it has been, apparently, customary for companies to
give in a number of places in this state. It also includes free exchange of
toll service for a part only of the subscribers of a telephone company,
similarly situated, and not for all of the subscribers. It naturally follows
that it includes all free and reduced rate service naw given to public. offices
and officers in the various municipalities, whether expressly provided for
in the franchise or not. It has been determined that a municipality has
no power to grant a franchise to a telephone company. An ordinance
attempting to grant such a franchise is ineffectual and void. State v. Mil-
waukee Independent Telephone Co., 114, N. W. 108; Wisconsin Telephone
Company v. Milwaukee, 126 Wis. 1; State v. Telephone Co., Ill Wis. 23.
Also coupon books, when sold below the regular public schedule rates.
. Rates-Telephone. — Free toll service 329
It does not, however, prohibit the giving of free service to such employes
of a telephone company whom the management of the company must
reach in order to provide adequate service to the public. The reduced rate
service, which is prohibited, is service of any kind furnished at lower rates
than the regular published schedule for that class of service. In re Free
or Reduced Rate Tel. Service, 1908, 2 R. G. 521, 541-542.
Investigation of by Commission.
23. Investigation, on motion of the Commission, of free and reduced
rate telephone service in Wisconsin. An order is made requiring telephone
companies to re-adjust their rates, charges, rules and regulations in accord-
ance with the interpretation of the law suggested by the Commission in a
series of findings applicable to the service under consideration. In re
Free and Reduced Rate Tel. Service, 1908, 2 R. C. 521.
Lower rates to stockliolders.
24. As the Public Utilities Law requires that all customers be treated
alike, it is not possible to make a lower rate to stockholders than to the
others. The only way in which they can be reimbursed is through divi-
dends declared after allowance has been made for depreciation. Knapp et
al. V. Matteson Tel. Co., 1912, 11 R. C. 180, 192; In re Appl. Rockland Tel.
Co., 1913, 11 R. C. 402, 408; In re Appl. Muscoda Mut. Tel. Co., 1913,
11 R. C. 666, 683; In re Appl. Beef River Valley Tel. Co., 1913, 12 R. C.
126.
Prohibited by law.
25. All free and reduced rate telephone service is absolutely prohibited
by the Public Utilities Law. (Sec. 1797m-89.) In re Free or Reduced Rate
Tel. Service, 1908, 2 R. C. 521, 541.
Rebate for equipment or services.
26. To allow a rebate for equipment or services furnished by subscrib-
ers is unlawful. It is permissible, however, for the utility to pay its
customers a rental for instruments supplied by them. In re Badger Tel.
Co., 1908, 3 R. C. 98, 112; Knapp et al. v. Matteson Tel. Co., 1912, 11 R. C.
180, 189.
XIX. FREE TOLL SERVICE.
*
Allowed for payment for regular service in advance.
27. Certain amount of free toll service to be allowed to subscribers
paying regular rentals in advance. In re Invest. Rates and Regulations
of Eagle Tel. Co., 1914, 15 R. C. 397.
Legality of.
28. It is lawful for companies to afford free toll service to their
respective subscribers, provided the same is given to all alike, without
discrimination. In such cases the free toll service may be regarded as a
part of the service which each company is providing for its subscribers.
In re Free and Reduced Rate Tel. Service, 1908, 2 R. C. 521, 545; In re
Appl. Muscoda Mut. Tel. Co., 1913, 11 R. C. 666, 678.
330 Rates-Telephone. — Free toll service
29. Although it is permissible for a telephone utility to furnish
exchange service free of charge, there is no obligation that the utility
shall do so. In re Appl. People's Tel. Co., 1913, 11 R. G. 499, 503.
XX. HARMONIC RINGING TELEPHONES.
Rates for.
30. Rates for harmonic ringing telephones established. No extra
charge for installation. In re Appl. Troy <Sc Honey Creek Tel. Co., 1914,
14 R. C. 157.
XXI. JOINT USER RATES.
Establishment of.
31. Joint user rates established. In re Appl. Bloomer Tel. Co.,
1909, 4 R. C. 259; In re Appl. Clark Co. Tel. Co., 1915, 15 R. G. 822.
XXII. MAKING RATES— ELEMENTS CONSIDERED.
Cost of service.
32. One of the important elements in estiablishing a rate, as has
repeatedly been held by this Commission, is the cost of performing the
service. Tighe et al. v. Clinton Tel. Co., 1908, 3 R. C. 117, 137; Payne et
al.u. Wis. Tel. Co., 1909, 4 R. C. 1, 58; Co7?no/- et al. v. Marsh et al., 1911,
6 R. C. 589, 601-602.
33. Cost of service is never the sole consideration in determining the
reasonableness of a charge. It is one of the primary considerations, but
there are other considerations often as vital in reaching a conclusion.
McGowan v. Rock County Tel. Co. et al, 1914, 15 R. C. 378, 380.
Development of plant to its full capacity.
y 34. It appears probable that the plan of telephone rate making now
in vogue was conceived and developed in the effort to solve the very
problem which we are now considering, i. e., the development of the
plant to its full capacity. The favor shown to residence subscribers may
have had its origin in a plan of calculated discrimination, attempted to
be justified on the grounds of value to the consumer. In that light,
this disparity between rates is not necessarily an unjust discrimination.
Payne et al. v. Wis. Tel. Co., 1909, 4 R. C. 1, 57.
Traffic conditions.
35. A factor to be considered in the forming of an equitable rate
schedule is the relation between the rates to be paid by rural subscribers
connected to loaded lines running between two exchanges when there is a
trunk line between those exchanges and the rate for the same class of
subscribers when there is no 'trunk line between the exchanges. In re
Appl. Farmers' Tel. Co. of Beetown, 1914, 13 R. C. 540, 583.
36. Traffic conditions were determined as closely as possible and the
annual cost to each company of the service in question was computed.
In re Appl. Trego Tel. Co., 1914, 14 R. C. 499, 500-501.
Rates-Telephone. — Party line rates 331
XXIII. MEASURED RATES.
Nature of.
37. The rate which appears best calculated to reflect the cost of
service has been aptly termed, in its limited application to the telephone
business, the "measured" rate. In its correct form this rate is made up
of an installation charge, which should cover the cost of maintaining
the station permanently, upon which is imposed a charge for the service
actually rendered. Payne ei al. v. Wis. Tel. Co., 1909, 4 R. C. 1, 58.
XXIV. NONSUBSCRIBER CHARGES.
Establishment of.
38. Nonsubscriber charges established. In re Appl. Midway Tel.
Co., 1909, 3 R. C. 586; In re Appl. Oostburg Tel. Co., 1910, 4 R. C. 407;
In re Appl. Ozaukee-Washington County Tel. Co., 1911, 7 R. C. 428;
In re Appl. Muscoda Mut. Tel. Co., 1913, 11 R. C. 666; In re Appl. Troy
& Honey Creek Tel. Co., 1914, 14 R. C. 157; In re Appl. Clark County Tel
Co., 1915, 15 R. C. 822. '
Legality of.
39. The question of a charge to nonsubscribers is not directly involved
in the present case. Such a charge has been held legal in the decision.
In re Free and Reduced Rate Telephone Service, 1908, 2 R. G. 521, 544;
(Finding 4.) Boscobel Tel. Co. v. Crawford Co. F. Mut. Tel. Co. et al.,
1912, 11 R. G. 32, 36.
Reasonableness of.
40. The charge of 10 cts. per five minute message made to nonsub-
scribers for the use of subscribers' telephones does not appear unreason-
able, in that the difficulty experienced by the telephone company in
collecting charges of this kind in a large measure offsets the possib'le
profits that might be secured. In fairness to the regular subscribers the
rate charged to nonsubscribers should be high enough to prevent the cost
of its collection from falUng upon the regular subscribers in general.
Dorm et al. v. Walworth Tel. Co., 1914, 15 R. G. 412, 415.
XXV. "OTHER LINE" GHARGES.
Establishment of.
41. "Other line" charge established. Union Tel. Co. v. West Crawford
Co. F. M. Tel. Co. et al., 1913. 12 R. G. 140.
XXVI. PARTY LINE RATES.
Desirability of.
42. There seems to be no reason why party line service should not
be offered, provided patrons are allowed to choose what class of service
they shall have. The effect of the introduction of such service, with the
332 Rates-Telephone. — Party line rates
attendant increase which may be expected in the number of subscribers,
will be to cut down the interest and depreciation and some of the other
expenses per phone installed, as the amount of plant and equipment
required per phone will be decreased. In re Appl. Brodhead Tel. Co.,
1912, 9 R. C. 383, 386.
Relation of.
43. Except to a limited extent the differential between one and two-
party line rates seems to have less justification than the difference between
business and residence telephone rates. Payne et al. v. Wis. Tel. Co.,
1909, 4 R. C. 1, 56-57.
XXVII. PHYSICAL CONNECTION.
Terms and conditions of joint use.
See Telephone Utilities, 41.
XXVIII. PROTECTED WIRES.
Charges for.
44. In cases where the company provides protected wires to meet
special conditions, it is lawful to collect a special installation charge to
meet the additional expense incurred. An addition to the regular charge
for the service should not be imposed on account of such protected wire,
or other special device, which is properly chargeable only to the installa-
tion. In re Free and Reduced Rate Tel. Service, 1908, 2 R. C. 521, 545.
XXIX. REASONABLENESS OF ADVANCE IN RATES IN
PARTICULAR CASES.
In general.
45. Application for increase dismissed due to lack of accounting
data required by law. In re Appl. Troy &. Honey Creek Tel. Co., 1911,
6 R. C. 549; In re 'Appl State Long Distance Tel. Co., 1912, 8 R. C. 497.
46. Increase in rates deferred until accounting data of utility conform
to standards prescribed by Commission. In re Appl. Plymouth Tel.
Exch., 1912, 9 R. C. 169; In re Appl. Platteville, Rewey & Ellenboro Tel.
Co., 1912, 10 R. C. 534; In re Appl. Peoples Tel. Co., 1913, 11 R. C. 499;
In re Appl. Deerfield Tel. Co., 1913, 12 R. C. 672.
47. The question of reasonableness of advance in rates in general
was passed upon in the following cases: In re Appl. J. L. Ball, 1907,
2 R. C. 105; In re Appl. Brodhead Tel. Co., 1907, 2 R. C. 113; /n re Appl.
Ettrick Tel. Co., 1908, 2 R. C. 358; In re Rhinelander Mutual Tel. Co.,
1908, 2 R. C. 427; In re Appl. Peoples Tel. Co. of Dane County, 1908,
2 R. C. 518; In re Appl. Portage Tel. Co., 1908, 2 R. C. 692; In re Badger
Tel. Co., 1908, 3 R. C. 98; In re Appl. Lone Rock Tel. Co., 1909, 3 R. C.
412; In re Appl. Pewaukee-Sussex Tel. Co., 1909, 3 R. C. 420; In re Appl.
Peoples Tel. Co., 1909, 3 R. C. 452; In re Oregon Tel. Co., 1909, 3 R. C.
534; In re Appl. Cumberland Tel. Co., 1909, 3 R. C. 576; In re Appl.
Midway Tel. Co., 1909, 3 R. C. 586; In re Appl. Bloomer Tel. Co., 1909,
Rates-Telephone. — Reasonablen. of adv. in partic. cases 333
4 R. C. 259; In re Appl. Oostburg Tel. Co., 1910, 4 R. G. 407; In re Appl.
Franksville Tel. Co., 1910, 4 R. C. 437; In re Appl. Badger Teleg. & Tel.
Co., 1910, 5 R. C. 300; In re Appl. Interurban Tel. Co., 1910, 6 R. C. 187;
In re Appl. Eleva Farmers' Tel. Co., 1911, 6 R. C. 211 ; In re Appl. Wautoma
& Mt. Morris Farmers' Tel. Co., 1911, 6 R. C. 419; In re Appl. Milton &
Milton Jet. Tel. Co., 1911, 6 R. C. 542; In re Appl. Troy <k Honey Creek
Tel. Co., 1911, 6 R. C. 549; In re Appl. Brooklyn Tel. Co., 1911, 6 R. C.
573; In re Appl. Evansville Tel. Exch., 1911, 6 R. C. 606; In re Appl.
Argyle Tel. Co., 1911, 6 R. C. 616; In re Evansville Tel. Exch., 1911,
6 R. C. 639; In re Appl. Interurban Tel. Co., 1911, 6 R. C. 647; In re Appl.
Morris Tel. Co., 1911, 7 R. C. 426; In re Appl. Ozaukee-Washington Tel.
Co., 1911, 7 R. C. 428; In re Appl. Pewaukee-Sussex Tel. Co., 1911, 7
R. C. 465; In re Platteville, Rewey <Sc Ellenboro Tel. Co., 1911, 7 R. C.
608; In re Appl. People's Tel. Co.,. 1911, 8 R. C. 92; In re Appl. State
Long Distance Tel. Co., 1912, 8 R. G. 497; In re Appl. Plymouth Tel.
Exch., 1912, 9 R. G. 169; In re Appl. Farmers' Tel. Exch. of Richland
Center, 1912, 9 R. G. 369; In re Appl. Brodhead Tel. Co., 1912, 9 R. G.
383; In re Appl. Ashland Home Tel. Co., 1912, 9 R. G. 489; In re Appl.
Midway Tel. Co., 1912, 9 R. G. 497; In re Appl. East Fond du Lac Tel. Co.,
1912, 11 R. G. 114; In re Appl. Random Lake Tel. Co., 1912, 11 R. G. 130;
In re Appl. Rockland Tel. Co., 1913, 11 R. G. 402; In re Appl. Melville
Settlement Tel. Co., 1913, 11 R. G. 415; In re Appl. People's Tel. Co.,
1913, 11 R. G. 499; In re Appl. Muscoda Mut. Tel. Co., 1913, 11 R. G.
666; In re Appl. Viking' Tel. Co., 1913, 11 R. G. 697; In re Appl. Casco Sc
Brussels Tel. Co., 1913, 11 R. G. 760; In re Appl. Grant Co. Tel. Co.,
1913, 12 R. G. 128; In re Appl. County Line Tel. Co., 1913, 12 R. G. 169;
In re Appl. Deerfield Tel. Co., 1913, 12 R. G. 672; In re Farmers' Tel. Co.
of Beetown, 1914, 13 R. G. 540; In re Appl. Oakfield Tel. Co., 1914, 13
R. G. 726; In re Appl. Troy <k Honey Creek Tel. Co., 1914, 14 R. G. 157;
In re Appl. Ettrick Tel. Co., 1914, 14 R. G. 405; In re Appl. Badger State
Tel. Sc Teleg. Co., 1914, 14 R. G. 407; In re Appl. Ripon United Tel. Co.,
1914, 14 R. G. 427; In re Appl. Trego Tel. Co., 1914, 14 R. G. 499; In re
Appl. Eleva Farmers' Tel. Co., 1914, 14 R. G. 586; In re Appl. Coloma Tel.
Co., 1914, 14 R. G. 594; In re Appl. Prescott Tel. Exchange, 1914, 14 R. G.
701; In re Appl. Mosinee Tel. Co., 1914, 14 R. G. 709; In re Appl. Mar-
quette & Adams Co. Tel. Co., 1914, 14 R. G. 750; In re Appl. Cascade Tel.Co.,
1914, 14 R. G. 808; In re Appl. Mineral Pt. Tel. Co., 1914, 15 R. G. 70;
In re Appl. Glidden Tel. Co., 1914, 15 R. G. 180; In re Appl. Mineral Pt.
Tel. Co., 1914, 15 R. G. 182; In re Appl. Norwalk Independent Tel. Co.,
1914, 15 R. G. 222; In re Appl: New Lisbon Mut. Tel. Co., 1914, 15 R. G.
280; In re Invest. Rates and Regulations of Eagle Tel. Co., 1914, 15 R. G.
397; In re Appl. Marion & Northern Tel. Co., 1914, 15 R. G. 552; In re
Appl. Clark County Tel. Co. to Increase Rates, 1915, 15 R. G. 822.
Advances to eliminate discrimination.
48. Increase in rates to certain subscribers authorized in order to
eliminate unjust discrimination. In re Appl. Tomah El. Sc Tel. Co.,
1907, 2 R. G. 296; In re Appl. La Crosse Tel. Co., 1908, 2 R. G. 546;
In re Appl. Beef River Valley Tel. Co., 1913, 12 R. C. 126; /n re Appl.
West Menasha Tel. Co., 1914, 15 R. G. 224.
334 Rates-Telephone. — Reasonahlen. of adv. in partlc. cases
Excess radius charge, establishment of.
49, Company authorized to apply excess radius charge. In re AppL
Tomahawk Lt. Tel & Impr. Co., 1913, 13 R. C. 340.
Improvement of service.
• 50. Advance in rates on basis of improved service. In re Appl.
Eastern Wis. Tel. Co., 1910, 5 R. C. 212; In re Appl. Mineral Ft. Tel. Co.,
1912, 9 R. C. 285; King et al. v. Wis. Tel. Co., 1912, 10 R. C. 517; In re
Appl. Platteville, Rewey d: Ellenhoro Tel. Co., 1912, 10 R. C. 534.
XXX. REASONABLENESS OF RATES— MATTERS CONSIDERED
IN DETERMINING REASONABLENESS.
Cost of service.
51. Cost of service is the best test of the reasonableness of telephone
rates, provided it is commercially feasible and otherwise equitable.
Payne et al. v. Wis. Tel. Co., 1909, 4 R. 6. 1, 58; In re Appl. Interurban
Tel. Co., 1911, 6 R. C. 647, 652; In re Appl. Pewaukee- Sussex Tel. Co.,
1911, 7 R. C. 465, 472; In re Appl. Plymouth Tel. Exch., 1912, 9 R. C.
169, 111; Union Tel. Co. v. Western Crawford Co. F. M. T. Co., 1913,
12 R. C. 140, 143.
52. Satisfaction can probably not be obtained with a complete or
partial schedule of telephone rates based primarily on the cost of service,
unless the actual difference in cost can be demonstrated. Olson et al. u.
Wis. Tel. Co., 1909, 3 R. C. 440, 450.
Average or normal costs.
53. The widely varying expenses for the years in question show how
unsafe it is to judge of the fairness of a rate by examination of the expenses
for a single year. In re Appl. Interurban Tel. Co., 1911, 6 R. C. 647, 652.
Financial conditions. ^
54. At the time of the hearing, the representatives of the company
presented an argument setting forth the financial condition of the utility
and giving in some detail the reasons for asking for increased earnings.
Although it is not considered necessary to review in detail the argument
of the company, consideration must be given to the financial condition
in determining what are reasonable rates. In re Appl. Clark County
Tel. Co. to Increase Rates, 1915, 15 R. C. 822, 826.
Going value.
55. Every effort honestly put forth, every dollar properly expended,
and every obligation legitimately incurred in the establishment of an
efficient public utility business, must be taken into consideration in the
making of rates for such business. Collectively the elements just referred
to may be designated by the term going value, and in this sense there can
be no question regarding the propriety and justice of admitting going value
as a consideration in the determination of rates. Payne et al. v. Wis.
Tel. Co., 1909, 4 R.* C. 1, 61.
Rates-Telephone. — Reasonableness of in particular cases 335
Local conditions.
56. The reasonableness of a schedule must be determined with
reference to local conditions. In re Appl. Plymouth Tel. Exch., 1912,
9 R. C. 169, 177.
57. The factors determining the reasonableness of a rate vary
according to the locality or exchange considered. A comparison of these
local conditions, with the view of determining the equity in a uniform
charge in different localities, is practically impossible. In re Appl.
Argyle Tel. Co., 1911, 6 R. C. 616, 617.
Net earnings.
58. The reasonableness of the rates that a public service corporation
may charge the public is determined, in a great measure, by the net
earnings left to the stockholders after deducting from the total operating
revenues the expense of operation and maintenance, amount of annual
depreciation of the plant and all other proper charges. Berend u. Wis.
Tel. Co., 1909, 4 R. G. 150, 155; Davis et al. v. Wis. Tel. Co., 1909, 4 R. G.
370, 375; Connor et al. v. Marsh et al., 1911, 6 R. G. 589, 600; In re Appl.
Interurban Tel. Co., 1911, 6 R. G. 647, 649; Knapp et al. v. Matteson Tel.
Co., 1912, 11 R. G. 180, 187; In re Appl. Mosinee Tel. Co., 1914, 14 R. G.
709, 710-712.
Quality of service.
59. An increase in rates is necessary if the city of Ripon is to be given
the advantage of the improved service proposed by the utility. In re
Appl. Ripon United Tel. Co., 1914, 14 R. G. 427, 430.
Quantity of service.
60. No reasonable objection can be taken to a schedule of exchange
telephone charges based upon the actual quantity of the service rendered.
Olson et al. v. Wis. Tel. Co., 1909, 3 R. G. 440, 450.
Rental for equipment.
61. The rates should be sufTiciently high to permit the utility to pay
a rental for equipment used but not owned by it. Knapp et al. v. Matteson
Tel. Co., 1912, 11 R. G. 180, 189-190.
XXXI. REASONABLENESS OF RATES IN PARTIGULAR GASES.
Bridged telephone service.
62. Gomplaint that the Wis. Tel. Go. charges single-party rates for
the two-party line service for one subscriber which it formerly furnished
by bridging at the central ofTice. Held: That the existing classification
of service is not discriminatory; that when two separate telephone circuits
are bridged at the central office, they should be considered as two separate
units, and that, if a patron's office and home are so located that it is
feasible to connect them on a single two-party circuit, such action on the
part of the company should not be regarded as discrimination, provided
other subscribers similarly situated with reference to the distributing
points of the cable distributing system are furnished the same service
336 Rates-Telephone. — Reasonableness of in particular cases
upon request. However, the company should take \'igorous steps to
prevent the repetition of the practice apparently indulged in by the local
office in the present case, of soliciting patronage by making representa-
tions contrary to the provisions of the written contracts for service.
In re Invest. Bridged Tel. Service at Princeton^ 1914, 15 R. C. 475.
Discriminatory rates.
63. Investigation of alleged unjustly discriminatory rates. National
Travelers^ Assn. of Amer. v. Wis. Tel. Co., 1910, 5 R. C. 678; Gross et al. v.
Wis. Tel. Co., 1911, 6 R. C. 432; Juneau El. Co. v. New Lisbon Tel. Co.,
1911, 8 R. C. 399; Johnson et al. v. Lodi Tel. Exch., 1913, 11 R. C. 713;
Ettrick Tel. Co. v. West. Wis. Tel. Co. et al., 1914, 14 R. G. 180; Dorm
et al. V. Walworth Tel. Co., 1914, 15 R. C. 412.
Equipment rental.
64. Equipment rental charged by utility held unlawful. Knapp et al.
V. Matteston Tel. Co., 1912, 11 R. C. 180, 190, 193-194.
Excessive rates.
65. Investigation of alleged excessive rates. Tighe et al. v. Clinton
Tel. Co., 1908, 3 R. C. 117; Payne et al. v. Wis. Tel. Co., 1909, 4 R. C. 1;
Davis et al. v. Wis. Tel. Co., 1909, 4 R. C. 370; Columbus Adv. Assn. v.
Wis. Tel. Co., 1910, 4 R. C. 414; Hoffman et al. v. Wausau Tel. Co., 1913,
11 R. C. 480;. Union Tel. Co. v. Western Crawford Co. F. M. T. Co. et al.,
1913, 12 R. G. 140; City of Merrill v. Wis. Tel. Co., 1913, 12 R. G. 490;
Arena & Ridg^y T. Co. v. Troy Sc Honey Creek Tel. Co. et al., 1914, 13 R. G.
763; 15 R. G. 315; Coady et al. v. La Crosse Tel. Co., 1915, 15 R. G. 831.
XXXII. REGEIVING LINES.
Rate for.
66. Receiving lines established. City of Merrill v. Wis. Tel. Co.,
1913, 12 R. G. 490.
XXXIII. REGONNEGTION GHARGES.
Establishment of.
67. The company may adopt a rule providing for a charge of $2.00 for
reconnecting a telephone for the same subscriber upon the same premises
within one year after service has been discontinued. In re Invest. Rates
and Regulations of Eagle Tel. Co., 1914, 15 R. G. 397, 402.
XXXIV. REMOVAL GHARGES.
Establishment of.
68. Gharges established for removing telephone from one location
to another. In re Appl. La Crosse Tel. Co., 1908, 2 R. G. 546; In re
Appl. Plymouth Tel. Exch., 1912, 9 R. G. 169; In re Appl. West Menasha
Tel. Co., 1914, 15 R. G. 224; In re Appl. Clark County Tel. Co., 1915,
15 R. G. 822.
Rates-Telephone. — Switching rates 337
Reasonableness of.
69. A special fee may be cljarged for removing telephones from one
address to another after the first installation. The amount of this fee
should be as nearly as possible the actual cost of performing the work.
In re Free and Reduced Rate Tel. Service, 1908, 2 R. G. 521, 545.
XXXV. SHORT TIME RATES.
Establishment of.
70. Rates for short time or temporary service established. In re
Appl. Pewaukee-Sussex Tel. Co., 1911, 7 R. G. 465; In re Appl. Muscoda
Mut. Tel. Co., 1913, 11 R. G. 666; In re Appl Clark Co. Tel. Co., 1915,
15 R. G. 822.
Reasonableness of.
71. Telephones installed or used for short periods of time, such as
telephones in summer cottages, temporary business places, etc., may
justly be charged a higher rate than the proportional part of the regular
annual rate for the respective classes of service. In re Free and Reduced
Rate Tel. Service, 1908, 2 R. G. 521, 545.
XXXVI. SILENT RINGING TELEPHONES.
Rates for.
72. Rates established for silent ringing telephones. No charge for
installation. In re Appl. Troy Sc Honey Creek Tel. Co., 1914, 14 R. G.
157.
XXXVII. SPEGIAL GONTRAGT RATES.
Status of.
See GoNTRACT of Shipments.
XXXVIII. SWITGHING RATES.
Establishment of.
73. Rates for switching service established. In re Appl. Plymouth
Tel. Exch., 1912, 9 R. G. 169; In re Appl. Mineral Pt. Tel. Co., 1912,
9 R. G. 285; In re Appl. Farmers Tel. Exch. of Richland Center, 1912,
9 R. G. 369; Boscobel Tel. Co. v. Crawford Co. F. M. Tel. Co. et at., 1912,
11 R. G. 32; Union Tel. Co. v. W. Crawford Co. F. M. Tel. Co. et al.,
1912, 11 R. G. 42; In re Appl. Muscoda Mut. Tel. Co., 1913, 11 R. G. 666;
Union Tel. Co. v. West. Crawford Co. F. M. Tel. Co. et al., 1913, 12 R. G.
140; In re Appl. Farmers' Tel. Co. of Beetown, 1914, 13 R. G. 540; Arena
& Ridg'y Tel: Co. v. Troy Sc Honey Creek Tel. Co. et al., 1914, 13 R. G.
763; Hawkins Creek Tel. Co. et al. v. Badger Tel. Co., 1914, 14 R. G. 655;
In re Appl. Mineral Pt. Tel. Co., 1914, 15 R. G. 70; Arena Sc Ridg'y Tel.
Co. V. Troy & Honey Creek Tel. Co. et al., 1914, 15 R. G. 315.
338 Rates-Telephone. — T.0II drops ,
XXXIX. TOLL DROPS.
Rates for,
74. Rates for toll drops established. In re Appl. Plymouth Tel.
Exch., 1912, 9 R. G. 169.
XL. TOLL OR LONG DISTANGE GONNEGTION RATES.
Reasonableness of.
75. Gonnection charges for subscribers not having direct connection
with long distance lines held unreasonable. Connor et al. v. Marsh et al.,
1911, 6 R. G. 589.
XLI. TOLL RATES.
Establishment of.
76. Rates for toll service established. In re Appl. Peoples Tel. Co.
of Dane County, 1908, 2 R. G. 518; In re Appl. La Crosse Tel. Co., 1908,
2 R. G. 546; In re Appl. Peoples Tel. Co. of Dane Co., 1909, 3 R. G. 452;
In re Appl Midway Tel. Co., 1909, 3 R. G. 586; In re Appl. Badger Teleg.
Sc Tel. Co., 1910, 5 R. G. 300; Johnson et al. v. Lodi Tel. Exch., 1913,
11 R. G. 713; Union Tel. Co. v. West Crawford Co. F. M. Tel. Co. et al.,
1913, 12 R. G. 140; In re Clinton Tel. Co. and Bergen Tel. Co., 1913,
13 R. G. 249; In re Appl. Farmers' Tel. Co. of Beetown, 1914, 13 R. G. 540;
In re Appl. Troy Sz Honey Creek Tel. Co., 1914, 14 R. G. 157; In re Appl.
Trego Tel. Co., 1914, 14 R. G. 499; Winter v. La Crosse Tel. Co. et al.,
1914, 15 R. G. 36; In re Appl. Mineral Pt. Tel. Co., 1914, 15 R. G. 70;
In re Appl. New Lisbon Mut. Tel. Co., 1914, 15 R. G. 280; McGowan v.
Rock Co. Tel. Co. et al., 1914, 15 R. G. 378; In re Invest, Eagle Tel. Co., 1914,
15 R. G. 397.
XLII. TOLL RATES, OPTIONAL.
Establishment of.
77. Toll rate schedules established providing for payment for service
upon either a flat rate basis or a message basis at the option of the sub-
scribers. In re Appl. Peoples Tel. Co. of Dane County, 1908, 2 R. G. 518;
In re Appl. Farmers' Tel. Co. of Beetown, 1914, 13 R. G. 540; Johnson et al.
V. Readfield Tel. Co. et al, 1914, 14 R. G. 102; In re Appl Troy & Honey
Creek Tel Co., 1914, 14 R. G. 157; Curtiss Sc Withee Tel Co. v. Owen Tel
Co., 1914, 14 R. G. 419; Hawkins Creek Tel Co. et al v. Badger Tel Co.,
1914, 14 R. G. 655; In re Appl New Lisbon Mut. Tel Co., 1914, 15 R. G.
280; In re Toll Rates, Markesan to Kingston, 1914, 15 R. G. 288; Coady
et al V. La Crosse Tel. Co., 1915, 15 R. G. 831.
RATES— TOLL BRIDGE.
MAKING RATES— ELEMENTS GONSIDERED.
Cost of service — Wages of management.
1. In view of the investment in the property and the risks to which
it is exposed, the volume of business, and also the time required for
Rates-Utilitij 339
management of the affairs of the utility, provision should be made for
the payment of a salary to the member of the firm who is in active charge
of the bridge. Marcus et al. v. Postel Sc Swingle, 1913, 13 R. G. 47, 49.
REASONABLENESS OF RATES IN PARTICULAR CASES.
Automobile rates.
2. Petitioner alleges that the respondent charges unreasonable tolls
for automobiles over its toll bridge at Sturgeon Bay. Held: Respondent's
present tolls for automobiles are unreasonable. The respondent is
ordered to discontinue its present toll for automobiles and to substitute
therefor a toll of 15 cts. each one way and 25 cts. for each round trip.
City of Sturgeon Bay v. Sturgeon Bay Bridge Co., 1911, 7 R. C. 727.
Single trip rates.
3. The complainants allege that the rates charged by the respondent
for the use of its toll bridge over ihe Wisconsin river at Muscoda are
excessive and discriminatory. Held: A slight reduction of revenue is
justified. The present rate schedule, however, shows no marked inequity,
except that existing between the charge for a single trip for a double team
or automobile and the ticket rates for vehicles making ten or more trips.
A reduction of the single trip rate for this class of business is, therefore,
the only change which is considered advisable. Marcus et al: v. Postel
& Swingle, 1913, 13 R. C. 47.
RATES— UTILITY.
Advance in rates without authority from Commission.
1. The action of a telephone company in notifying its subscribers of
an advance in rates previous to the granting of authority for such an
advance by the Railroad Commission, is unlawful. In re Oregon Tel. Co.^
1909, 3 R. C. 534, 552.
Charges to be reasonable and just.
2. The statutes provide that the rates charged the consumers, and
the rates of return upon the investment, must be reasonable, but do not
specifically state what the reasonable rate should be. They further
provide that it is the duty of this Commission to enforce these statutes,
or to determine the reasonable rate or rates. The decisions of the court
are confined to the determination as to whether the rates thus found by
this Commission are reasonable or whether they violate constitutional
rights. While neither the statutes nor the decisions are thus furnishing
specific directions for the guidance of the Commission in carrying out its
duties, they contain certain rules which, in a general way, limit the range
within which the reasonable rate should be found. State Journal Prig.
Co. et al. V. Madison Gas & El. Co., 1910, 4 R. C. 501, 624-625.
Reductions in rates.
3. The reductions in public utility rates may be made without
express authority from the Commission so long as the same are published
340
Rates-Utilitij
as required by law and are not unjustly discriminatory. In re Appl.
Tomah El & Tel. Co., 1908, 2 R. C. 296, 297.
System must be treated as a unit in making rates for branches or
new extensions of the service.
4. In the interests of both the public and the carriers it is usually
necessary to treat the system as one unit and to make the same rate for
the same class or kind of service, even if there is some difference in the cost
of same. The fact that a carrier may be entitled to reasonable returns
upon its business when taken as a whole, does not necessarily imply that
each and every part of the service must be equally profitable. What is
true for common carriers in this respect is also true, in a way, for other
public utilities. Beloit Water, Gas & El. Co. v. City of Beloit, 1910, 5
R. C. 617, 632.
RATES— WATER.
Deposits to insure payment of bills, see Rules and Regulations, 21-26.
Discounts for prompt payment of bills, see Rules and Regulations,
14-19.
Discrimination in water rates, see Discrimination, 31-46.
Penalties for delinquent payment of bills, see Rules and Regulations,
14-18.
I. • ADDITIONAL CONSUMERS ON SAME METER.
II. CONSTRUCTION PURPOSES.
III. EMERGENCY OR "STANDBY" SERVICE.
IV. FIRE PROTECTION RATES.
a. Private. b. Public.
V. FLAT RATES.
VI. FOUNTAIN RATES.
VII. FREE OR REDUCED RATE SERVICE.
VIII. HYDRANT RENTAL.
IX. MAKING RATES— ELEMENTS CONSIDERED.
X. METER RATES.
XI. METER RENTAL.
XII. MINIMUM CHARGES.
XIII. OUTSIDE CONSUMERS.
XIV. PARTIAL METERING.
XV. PUBLIC BUILDING RATES.
XVI. REASONABLENESS OF ADVANCE IN RATES IN PARTICULAR.
CASES.
XVII. REASONABLENESS OF RATES— MATTERS CONSIDERED IN
DETERMINING. REASONABLENESS.
XVIII. REASONABLENESS OF RATES IN PARTICULAR CASES
XIX. RECONNECTION CHARGES.
XX. REGRESSIVE RATES.
XXI. SERVICE CHARGES.
XXII. SEWER FLUSHING RATES.
XXIII. SHORT TIME SERVICE.
XXIV. STREET SPRINKLING RATES.
XXV. TAPPING OF MAINS.
Rates-Water. — Fire protection rates 341
I. ADDITIONAL CONSUMERS ON SAME METER.
Charges for.
1 . Extra charges for additional consumers on same meter established.
Dick et al. v. Madison Water Comm., 1910, 5 R. C. 731; Kirwin et al. v.
City of Darlington, 1910, 6 R. C. 26; City of Beloit v. Beloit W. G. & El. Co.,
1911, 7 R. C. 187; City of Janesville v. Janesville Water Co., 1911, 7 R. C.
628; Lothrop v. Village of Sharon, 1912, 8 R. C. 479; Civic League et al. v.
Beaver Dam W. Co., 1912, 10 R. C. 661 ; In re Appl. Neenah Mun. W. Wks.,
1912, 11 R. C. 119; In re Invest. Evansville El. Lt. <Sc W. Plant, 1912,
11 R. C. 197; City of Green Bay v. Green Bay W. Co., 1913, 11 R. C. 236;
In re Appl. Columbus W. <Sc Lt. Comm., 1913, 11 R. C. 449; In re Appl.
Village of Elkhart Lake, 1913, 11 R. C. 690; In re Appl. City of Delavan
1913, 12 R. C. 148; In re Appl. Ft. Atkinson W. Sc Lt. Comm., 1913,
12 R. C. 260; In re Appl. City of Sparta, 1913, 12 R. C. 532; In re Invest.
Ashland Water Co., 1914, 14 R. C. 1; Dennett et al. v. City of Sheboygan,
1914, 14 R. C. 634.
II. CONSTRUCTION PURPOSES.
Rates for.
2. Rates established for water used for construction purposes.
In re Appl. Oconto City W. Supply Co., 1911, 7 R. C. 497; City of Janesville
V. Janesville Water Co., 1911, 7 R. C. 628; Civic League et al. v. Beaver
Dam W. Co., 1912, 10 R. C. 661; Rollins et al. v. Village of Montfort,
1913, 11 R. C. 278; In re Appl. City of Viroqua, 1913, 11 R. C. 330;
In re Appl. Cashton Lt. Sz W. Comm., 1913, 11 R. C. 410; In re Appl.
Columbus W. <k Lt. Comm., 1913, 11 R. C. 449; In re Appl. City of Delavan,
1913, 12 R. C. 148; In re Appl. City of Sparta, 1913, 12 R. C. 532; In re
Appl. Park Falls Mun. W. Wks., 1914, 15 R. C. 284; In re Invest. Waterloo
Mun. W. Sc El. Plant, 1914, 15 R. C. 534.
. III. EMERGENCY OR "STANDBY" SERVICE.
Rates for.
3. Rates established for emergency or "standby" water service.
City of Green Bay v. Green Bay W. Co., 1913, 11 R. C. 236.
IV. FIRE PROTECTION RATES.
a. PRIVATE.
Inside fire protection.
4. With regard to inside fire protection, such as automatic sprinkler
systems, the charge directly to the property protected may be justified.
It is not ordinarily regarded as being the duty of a city to furnish inside
fire protection, but, aside from any theories as to the city's obligations,
the charge for such protection appears to be in accord with the cost of
service principle. The demand which may be made by aji automatic
342 Rates- Water. — Fire protection rates
sprinkler system is entirely apart from either the domestic demand or
that of the hydrant system. In re Appl. Oconto City W. Supply Co.,
1911, 7 R. C. 497, 568.
5. Inside private fire protection, such as water service to automatic
sprinklers, and fire hose connections inside of buildings is usually more
quickly gotten into service when a fire starts and is universally considered
as being more efficient than the use of ordinary fire hydrants by the fire
department. It is of value to all concerned, but particularly to the
property owner served. That it is of value to others may, under some
circumstances, warrant the elimination of charges for such service, but
the necessary circumstances do not exist here. In re Invest. Ashland
Water Co., 1914, 14 R. G. 1, 70.
a. PRIVATE. — Continued.
Privately owned hydrants.
6. In view of the fact that it is a recognized function of a city to
furnish reasonably adequate fire protection, it seems clear that, as far as
the water utility is concerned, the city should be the only party to pay for
hydrant fire protection. The mere fact that a city fails to fulfill its duty
of supplying adequate fire protection to buildings and structures within
its limits, does not justify the water utility in making a charge against a
private concern because that concern has installed hydrants which enable
it to secure adequate protection. The fire demand of the city must be
taken as a unit, and this can only be done when the city itself is the only
party to whom the utility sells water under pressure for fire protection.
In re Appl. Oconto City W. Supply Co., 1911, 7 R. C. 497, 567; City of
Beloit V. Beloit W. G. Sc El. Co., 1911, 7. R. C. 187, 341; City of Janesville
V. Janesville W. Co., 1911, 7. R. C. 628, 655; Fitzgerald et al. v. City of Tom-
ahawk, 1911, 8 R. C. 40, 56-57; City of Marinette v. City W. Co. of Marinette,
1911, 8 R. C. 334, 385; In re Appl. City of Sparta, 1913, 12 R. C. 532; In re
Invest. Ashland Water Co., 1914, 14 R. C. 1, 70.
7. With regard to private hydrants, it may be said that there are a
great many factors which influence the proper charge for this service.
In cases where the cities are paying their full share of the cost of operating
the utility, that is, where the cities are paying the full cost of fire protection,
there may be very little justification for any charge for private hydrants
based on any cost analysis. This, of course, cannot be made as a general
rule, because of differences of conditions in various cities. Where the
policy of the city, however, is not to bear the full cost of fire protection,
it can hardly be expected that the utility is to furnish private fire pro-
tection free of charge, and the rates which will be authorized in this case
represent the Commission's view of what will be reasonable rates for this
service in Manitowoc. In re Appl. City of Manitowoc as El. Sc Water
Utility, 1914, 15 R. C. 212, 215, 216.
b. PUBLIC.
In general.
8. Fire protection is an expense which should be borne by the tax-
payers for service rendered to them as distinguished from service rendered
to general consumers. In re Appl. Village of Oregon, 1913, 11 R. G. 548,
550-551; In re Appl. Kenosha Mun. W. Plant, 1914, 15 R. G. 426, 430.
__^ Rates-Water. — Fire' protection rates 343
9. The determination of the proper charge to the pubUc for fire
service rests largely upon the matter of investment. The amount of
water used has practically no effect on the final result, as the quantity
consumed for fire service is practically negligible. City of Beioit v. Beloit
W. G. Sc EL Co., 1911, 7R. C. 187, 366; Hughes et al. v. Watertown W. Wks.,
1914, 14 R. C. 669, 682.
10. Respondent's contention that a considerable part of the property
in the city is beyond the fire' protection limits, is not without merit.
When conditions are normal, it is undoubtedly correct for cities to bear
the cost of fire protection. However, in the present case it has seemed
that the manner in which the fire protection cost should be borne should
not be prescribed by the order. The respondent is ordered to discontinue
its present rates for metered water and substitute therefor one of the
three schedules proposed according to the amount it desires to assume
toward bearing the burden of fire protection. Hughes et al. v. Watertown
W. Wks., 1914, 14 R. C. 669, 682, 683.
Adjustment on extension of mains.
11. The additional charge for fire protection service which arises
when extensions are laid and new hydrants installed thereon will depend
on such factors as the cost of the extension, the number of hydrants
installed, the probable consumption of water by the new consumers
reached, etc. City of Beloit v. Beloit W. G. & El. Co., 1911, 7 R. C. 187,
336.
12. As the proposed extension is not such that, if a number were
made, the capacity of the plant would have to be increased in order to
meet the demand, it would seem that the rate for fire protection on this
extension would not include any of the capacity expenses of the utility,
as these have already been included in the rate for existing fire protection.
The cost to the city, therefore, for fire protection on this proposed ex-
tension, should be made up of the amount of interest and depreciation
on the extension itself, and the cost to the utility of pumping whatever
additional water is required. Practically the only additional pumpage,
aside from what water may actually be used in time of fire, will be the
amount of leakage. Of course, there js also an added cost of keeping
water in the main, even if none is used, but this appears to be very slight
and is almost impossible of determination. City of Janesville v. Janesville
W. Co., 1911, 7. R. C. 628, 696.
Establishment of.
13. Rates for public fire protection established. City of Ripon v.
Ripon Lt. <Sc W. Co., 1910, 5 R. G. 1; //i re Appl. Jefferson Mun. El. Lt.
& W. Plant, 1910, 5 R. G. 555; Kirwin et al. v. City of Darlington, 1910,
6 R. G. 26; In re Appl Oconto City W. Supply Co., 1911, 7 R. G. 497;
City of Janesville v. Janesville Wafer Co., 1911, 7 R. G. 628; City of Mari-
nette V. City W. Co. of Marinette, 1911, 8 R. G. 334; Lothrop v. Village of
Sharon, 1912, 8 R. G. 479; Civic League et al. v. Beaver Dam W. Co., 1912,
10 R. G. 661; In re Appl. Neenah Mun. W. Wks., 1912, 11 R. G. 119; In re
Invest. Evansville El. Lt. <& W. Plant, 1912, 11 R. G. 197; City of Green Bay
v. Green Bay W. Co., 1913, 11 R. G. 236; In re Appl. Columbus W. & Lt.
344 Rates- Water. — Fire protection rates
Comm., 1913, 11 R. C. 449; In re Appl. Village of Elkhart Lake, 1913,
11 R. C. 690; In re AppL City of Delavan, 1913, 12 R. G. 148; In re Appl.
Fennimore Mun. W. <Sc Lt. Plant, 1913, 12 R. C. 194; In re AppL Ft.
Atkinson W. & Lt. Comm., 1913, 12 R. C. 260; In re Appl. City of Sparta,
1913, 12 R. C. 532; In re Invest. Green Bay Water Co., 1913, 12 R. C. 734;
In re Invest. Ashland Water Cd., 1914, 14 R. C. 1; Town of Vaughn v.
Hurley W. Co., 1914, 14 R. C. 291; Kittleson et at. v. Elroy Mun. W. &
Lt. Plant, 1914, 14 R. G. 485; Dennett et al. v. City of Sheboygan, 1914,
14 R. G. 634; Hughes et al. v. Watertown W. Wks., 1914, 14 R. G. 669;
In re Invest. Ashland Water Co., 1914, 14 R. G. 721; In re Appl. Park
Falls Mun. W. Wks., 1914, 15 R. G. 284; In re Appl. Kenosha Mun. W.
Plant, 1914, 15 R. G. 426; In re Invest. Waterloo Mun. W. & El. Plant,
1914, 15 R. G. 534.
b. PUBLIC. — Continued.
Influence of number of hydrants.
14. It is obvious that, other conditions remaining the same, the cost
of fire protection bears but a very slight relation to the number of hydrants.
The fire demand, which, in turn, determines very largely what investment
is required for purposes of furnishing fire protection, is not made by the
hydrants themselves, but by the district to be protected, and consequently
the interest, depreciation, taxes and capacity expenses are dependent
upon the fire demand and not upon the number of fixtures through
which the demand may be exercised. In re Appl. Oconto City W. Supply
Co., 1911, 7 R. G. 497, 565.
V. FLAT RATES.
Based on estimates.
15. Flat rates for water, it may safely be said, are seldorn, if ever,
closely based on a cost analysis. In the very nature of things they
cannot so conform, since the rate is an estimate on an assumed average.
City of Ripon v. Ripon Lt. & W. Co., 1910, 5 R. G. 1, 80; Kirwin et al.
V. City of Darlington, 1910, 6 R. G. 26, 29.
Extension of, undesirable.
16. There can be no justification for an extension of the flat rate
plan when the utility is financially able to install meters, and when the
conditions under which water is to be used are such that meters may be
advantageously placed. City of Janesville v. Janesville W. Co., 1911,
7 R. G. 628, 671.
Fixture basis.
17. Flat rates, in order to be justifiable in any measure, should be
based upon the number and kind of fixtures, size of opening, or similar
basis. Kirwin et al. v. City of Darlington, 1910, 6 R. G. 26, 29.
Generally undesirable.
18. It is a well understood fact that flat rates universally result in
excessive and wasteful consumption, and in unjust discriminations in
diverse forms, and in irritation and ill-feeling among the consumers as
Rates-Water. — Free or reduced rate service 345
to a schedule of rates, which at best is uncertain and guess work. City of
Washburn v. Washburn W. Wks., 1910, 6 R. C. 74, 92; In re Appl. Oconto
City W. Supply Co., 1911, 7 R. C. 497, 545; City of Janesville v. Janesville
W. Co., 1911, 7 R. C. 628, 669; City of Marinette v. City W. Co.,
1911, 8 R. C. 334, 369; In re Appl. Village of Oregon, 1913, 11 R. C. 548,
551; In re Appl. Fennimore Mun. W. Sc Lt. Plant., 1913, 12 R. C. 194,
203; Dennett et at. v. City of Sheboygan, 1914, 14 R. C. 634, 648.
Influence of sewer connections.
19. For unmetered consumers lower rates should be charged for
those without sewer connections, because they do not have so great an
opportunity to waste water. Dick et al. v. Madison Water Comm.,
1910, 5 R. C. 731, 771; Town of Vaughn v. Hurley W. Co., 1914, 14 R. C.
291, 304.
Relative importance of output costs.
20. It is to be remembered that the output costs are but a relatively
small part of the total expense of water works service, so many large
items are entirely independent of the amount of water used, therefore
the amounts of water actually used by the various flat rate takers indi-
vidually are of less importance than may seem, to some, to appear.
In re Invest. Ashland Water Co., 1914, 14 R. C. 1, 69.
Room charge.
21. As a portion of a flat rate schedule a room charge may have a
place, but it is a question whether such a charge can generally be justified
on the ground that the amount of water used varies with the number of
rooms. Fitzgerald et al. v. City of Tomahawk, 1911, 8 R. G. 40, 50.
22. There may be something to be said against a charge based on
the number of rooms but the number of rooms is apparently one of the
elements which should enter into a flat rate schedule. Town of Vaughn
V. Hurley W. Co., 1914, 14 R. G. 291, 306.
VI. FOUNTAIN RATES.
Establishment of.
23. Rates for public fountains established. City of Janesville v.
Janesville Water Co., 1911, 7 R. G. 628; In re Invest. Evansville El. Lt. <Sc
W. Plant, 1912, 11 R. G. 197; In re Appl. Fennimore Mun. W. <k Lt.
Plant, 1913, 12 R. G. 194.
VII. FREE OR REUUGED RATE SERVIGE.
Prohibited.
24. The furnishing of free or reduced rate service is prohibited by
law. Dick et al. v. Madison Water Comm., 1910, 5 R. G. 731, 790; Fitz-
gerald et al. V. City of Tomahawk, 1911, 8 R. G. 40; In re Appl. City of
Neenah, 1912, 11 R. G. 119, 128; In re Appl. City of Delavan, 1913, 12
R. G. 148, 162; In re Invest. Ashland Water Co., 1914, 14 R. G. 1, 68;
Hughes et al. v. Watertown W. Wks.,19U, 14 R. G. 669, 681.
346 , Rates-Water. — Hydrant rental
VIII. HYDRANT RENTAL.
Classes of service reasonably included.
25. No reason has been advanced why the consumption of water for
schools, churches, the city hall, and public library should be paid for
through the charges for hydrant service. It would appear that consump-
tion of this character should be placed on a meter .basis, and water
used by these consumers measured and paid for at meter rates. As regards
street sprinkling, flushing sewers, fire protection and similar public uses,
where it is impossible to measure the water used, the only method of
payment feasible would be the inclusion of the cost of these services in
the hydrant rental. City of Ripon v. Ripon Lt. Sc W. Co., 1910, 5 R. C.
1, 85.
Establishment of in particular cases.
See ante, 13.
IX. MAKING RATES— ELEMENTS CONSIDERED.
Capital, availability of.
26. Under normal conditions rates must be high enough to leave an
adequate surplus for those who assume the risks and responsibilities that
are involved, and to encourage new capital in entering such undertakings.
Such rates, when warranted by conditions, are not only just, but necessary.
Generally speaking, there is more risk in new than in older utilities, and
hence it also follows that higher profits should be allowed for the former.
Hill et al. v. Antigo Water Co., 1909, 3 R. C. 623, 762.
Comparative data.
27. Since the proper determination of rates must be based upon a
normal statement of expenses it is necessary to make comparisons of the
annual operating expenses through a period of years and determine the
normal amounts. In re Invest, Ashland Water Co., 1914, 14 R. C. 1, 54.
Cost of service.
28. Rates, to be equitable and just, should be based upon the cost
of rendering the service. In re Appl. Jefferson Mun. El. Lt. Sc W. Plant,
1910, 5 R. C. 555, 560; Dick et al. v. Madison Water Comm., 1910, 5 R. C.
731, 777; City of Beloit v. Beloit W. G. 8c EL Co., 1911, 7 R. C. 187, 339;
Superior Comml. Club et al. v. Superior W. Lt. Sc P. Co., 1912, 10 R. G.
704, 767-768.
29. While no rates should be higher than the value of the service for
which they are paid, it is by no means certain that it would be fair to
levy the same rates on all, regardless of the cost. Such policy, besides
being inequitable, invariably tends to discourage large scale consumption.
In re Appl. Manitowoc G. Co., 1908, 3 R. C. 163, 174, 175; City of
Beloit V. Beloit W. G. Sc El. Co., 1911, 7 R. C. 187, 338-339.
30. To put a rate schedule into effect for permanent use, which is so
low as to hardly cover the output costs, or that yields so little in the way
of revenues as to leave little or nothing for interest, depreciation and taxes.
Rates-Water. — Making rates — elements considered 347
would seem to be out of line with sound business practice, and discrimin-
atory as against other customers. In re Menominee & Marinette Lt.
& Tr. Co., 1909, 3 R. C. 778, 898; City of Beloit v. Beloit W. G. Sc El Co.,
1911, 7 R. G. 187, 340.
Average or normal costs.
31. In figuring the total cost of service, care must be exercised that a
normal or average year- be used as the basis. It is further desirable that
the most recent data should be employed. Dick et at. v. Madison Water
Comm., 1910, 5 R. C. 731, 747.
Economies in operation. -'
32. It is expected, and is quite generally found to be the fact, that in
combined plants the rates of general expenses or management costs will
be less than in the case of single utilities or plants operating a water, gas,
electric, or electric railway property alone. A combination of utilities,
such as this case presents, may offer many opportunities for economies
not possible in a single utility. Where such economies are made possible,
it would appear that while the public is entitled to some share in such
benefits as may result from such economies, at the same time the company
is entitled to a reward for effecting the results described. City of Beloit
p. Beloit W. G. & EL Co., 1911, 7 R. C. 187, 285.
Electrolysis, prevention of.
33. If the utility has taken 'reasonable precautions to prevent
electrolytic damage, as it appears to have done in the present case, there
seems to be no adequate reason for excluding from operating expenses
the cost of maintaining services if the expenses of such maintenance are
not otherwise abnormal. City of Green Bay v. Green Bay W. Co., 1913,
11 R. C. 236, 257.
Interest on city equity in municipally owned plants.
34. Whether or not the element in city equity resulting from the
appreciation of plant value and the reinvestment of profits from operation
should also be included in the amount of city equity upon which interest
is to be earned, is largely a matter of local policy and should be decided
in the light of local conditions. If the city so desires, it appears that it
should be allowed to earn on the entire amount of city equity. In re
Appl. City of Sparta, 1913, 12 R. G. 532, 541.
Interest and taxes (municipal plants).
35. If such items as interest and taxes are not considered by municipal
plants in fixing rates for private consumers, it would seem that these
consumers would be favored as against the taxpayers. There does not,
on the whole, appear to be any equitable ground upon which such charges
can be entirely eliminated in any industry or in connection with the services
of any public utility. In re Appl. Madison City Water Wks., 1909,
3 R. G. 299, 320; In re Appl. Jefferson Mun. El. Lt. & W. Plant, 1910,
5 R. G. 555, 559-560; Dick et at. v. Madison Water Comm., 1910, 5 R. G.
731, 746; Rollins et at. v. Village of Montfort, 1913, 11 R. G. 278, 285:
348 Rates-Water. — Making rates — elements considered
In re AppL Columbus W. Sc Lt. Comm., 1913, 11 R. G. 449, 456-457;
In re AppL City of Delavan, 1913, 12 R. C. 148, 153; In re AppL Ft.
Atkinson W. & Lt. Comm., 1913, 12 R. C. 260, 289; In re AppL City of
Sparta, 1913, 12 R. G. 532, 542; In re Invest. Waterloo Mun. W. & EL
Plant, 1914, 15 R. G. 534, 540.
Cost of service — Management, wages of.
36. The amount which should be considered a reasonable expense
for salaries must be determined by an examination of local conditions
and by comparisons with other plants which are similarly situated.
City of Janesville v. Janesville W. Co., 1911, 7 R. G. 628, 648.
37. It was argued by the company in support of the salaries paid
that the time of the president is worth $25 per day. Without attempting
to determine at this time wliether or not this value is correct, it should
be pointed out that the value of their time to the general officers them-
selves may be entirely different from its value to the utility. The value
of a man's services and time to himself would ordinarily be judged by
what he could dispose of them for, but the value to the utility must be
judged by the results obtained. City of Janesville v. Janesville W. Co.,
1911, 7 R. G. 628, 646.
38. That the services rendered by the officers have a value to the
operating utility can hardly be questioned, and it does not appear that
for a utility, such as respondent in this case, a payment of $2,500 per year
for salaries of general officers is very far, if at all, above a proper amount.
City of Green Bay v. Green Bay W. Co., 1913, 11 R. G. 236, 256.
Managerial ability.
39. In fixing rates for public utilities consideration should be given
to extraordinary efforts on the part of the management in extending the
use of the services of the plants. Such extensions subserve the best
interests of both the plants and their customers, and when due to initiate
and enterprise on the part of the management an allowance should be
made for it in the way of extra profits. Hill et al. v. Antigo Water Co.,
1909, 3 R. G. 623, 725; In re AppL Oconto City W. Supply Co., 1911,
7 R. G. 497, 516.
Output, capacity and consumer costs.
40. A water works system, when once constructed and put in opera-
tion, has a comparatively small portion of its expenses which are propor-
tional to the output, in which regard it is opposite to the cortditions in
the generation of electric energy. The greater part of the water utility's
operating costs are independent of the output or its variations and depend
largely upon the capacity of the plant or the investment represented
therein. City of Ripon v. Ripon Lt. <Sc W. Co., 1910, 5 R. C. 1, 62.
41. The capacity expenses represent that portion of the cost of the
service which accrues by virtue of the fact that a utility is compelled to
have in readiness a plant, equipment, instaUation, supplies, and labor
to meet the demand which may be made upon it by the consuming public.
It is that portion of the cost which is incurred independently of any ex-
pense of actually furnishing water. It is rather the expense incurred
Rates-Water. — Making rates — elements considered 349
by the utility in holding itself in readiness to furnish water at any time in
any quantity. The amount of capacity expense which is charged against
any consumer is the price that in justice he should pay for the right of
demanding service from the utility, however great or small that service
may be. Dick et al. v. Madison, Water Comm., 1910, 5 R. C. 731, 757.
42. It is recognized that there are certain expenses incurred in the
operation of a water utility which are directly proportional to the number
of consumers. Such cbsts as depreciation and interest on meters, cost of
reading meters, delivering bills, repairs on meters and services, are clearly
included in this class of expenses. These expenses go on whether the
consumer uses much or httle water, or, in fact, whether he uses water
or does not use the service. It is obvious that some form of charge must
be made that will guarantee the payment of these costs. Kirwin et at. v.
City of Darlington, 1910, 6 R. C. 26, 41.
43. The cost of supplying water is composed of three elements,
the consumer, capacity, and output costs — the first two, however, some-
times being combined in utility accounts — and it is inequitable to assess
the indirect expenses entirely to any one or two of these elements. Each
element must bear its proper share. Village of Sharon v. United Heat,
Li. & P. Co., 1913, 13 R. C. 1, 10.
44. The fixed or service charges are probably too burdensome to a
large number of small usiers and together with the output costs for water
used will doubtless make the total expense for water service seem out of
proportion to its value. It is therefore essential that the capacity and
consumer expenses of metered service be reduced by transferring a portion
of them to the output expenses. In re Invest. Ashland Water Co., 1914,
14 R. C. 1, 66.
45. Previous decisions of this Commission in similar cases have
indicated that in making rates for private service the best treatment of
the private service portions of the interest, taxes and depreciation is,
usually, to divide their sum between capacity, output and consumer
costs in the same proportions as the operating expenses are so divided.
In re Invest. Ashland Water Co., 1914, 14 R. G. 1, 61.
46. Each of the various departments of the service should bear its
proper burden of expense. The total operating expenses of the plant
must be distributed between that class which depends on the output of
water and varies with this output, and that class which is independent
of this output and which does not vary with it. These expenses in turn
must be apportioned between the commercial and industrial service and
the fire service. Hughes et al. v. Watertown Water Wks., 1914, 14 R. C.
669, 674.
Pumpage lost and unaccounted for.
47. In every water works system there is a considerable amount of
the total pumpage which is lost and unaccounted for, due chiefly to
unknown and unavoidable leakage. The investigation in a number of
cases appear to demonstrate that a substantial fraction of the total
pumpage must be eliminated from consideration in determining the
unit output charge in a rate schedule. The output expenses must be
assessed against the amount of pumpage which can be reasonably shown
350 Rates-Water. — Making rates — elements considered
____ I
to be used by the city and its citizens and for which collections may
reasonably be expected. In re Invest. Ashland Water Co., 1914, 14 R. C.
1, 59.
Cost of service — Taxes.
See also ante, 35.
48. It is understood that under the terms of the original franchises the
utility was exempted from local taxation. The legality of such an
exemption is a serious question. In the future the water plant in this
case will doubtless be required to pay taxes and provision must accord-
ingly be made for that expense in the rates. Town of Vaughn v. Hurley
W. Co., 1914, 14 R. C. 291, 302.
Development and retention of business.
49. It often happens that it is better, both for the plant and for all
of its customers as well, that large quantities of the products should be
sold at even less than enough to yield the regular rate of profits upon the
same, than that these quantities should not be sold at all. In re Appl.
Manitowoc G. Co., 1908, 3 R. C. 163, 175; City of Beloit v. Beloit W. G.
& El. Co., 1911, 7 R. C. 187, 339.
50. While the past net earnings are unquestionably less than would
constitute a fair return, the making of a new rate schedule which will
provide more equitable returns is a matter for very serious consideration.
The greater the increase in existing rates the greater will be the tendency
to not only check development of new business but to lose some of the
company's present consumers and revenue. There is, therefore, a practical
limit beyond which earnings cannot possibly be made to go, even though
this limit may not provide a fair and reasonable rate of return on the full
value. In re Invest. Ashland Water Co., 1914, 14 R. C. 1, 50.
51. It must be remembered that a number of concerns which might
naturally be expected to be large users of water from the utility's mains
are furnishing their own water supply, and any material increase in the
rates must be made with consideration given to the possibility that some
of the larger consumers find the rate prohibitive. In re Appl. Green
Bay Water Co., 1914, 15 R. C. 84, 90.
52. As the unit cost varies considerably among consumers who use
different quantities of water, it is customary to make the rate lower as
the quantity of water used increases. This form of schedule is also
necessary to make it economical for large consumers to take water from
the plant rather than to establish private plants of their own. So long
as such consumers pay enough to cover the direct costs of serving them,
and something in addition towards the expenses of the department as a
whole, it is manifest that it is to the advantage of all consumers for the
plant to render this service at rates which will yield such an amount.
In re Appl. Ft. Atkinson W. <Sc Lt. Comm., 1913. 12 R. G. ?60, 316-317.
Future additions.
53. It does not appear equitable to make present consumers con-
tribute through the rates such large amounts towards future additions
and towards retirement of present obligations as was suggested at the
Rates- Water. — Meter' rates 351
hearing in this case. Again, the probabiUty of a cycle of hard time
occurring later, as was also suggested during the hearings in this matter,
should not be made the justification for saddling present consumers with
rates through which a surplus fund may be built up to carry the plant
over the period of decreased revenue. Dennett et at. v. City of Sheboygan,
1914, 14 R. C. 634, 642.
Methods of financing utility.
54. If it were not for the fact that the city has no other means avail-
able of financing improvements in its water plant except such as are
dependent upon the earnings of the utility itself, it might not be necessary
to authorize any increase in revenues at this time. In re Appt. Kenosha
Man. W. Plant, 1914, 15 R. C. 426, 429.
Value of the service.
55. The question of the value of the service demands consideration
in any case wherein rates equitable to the company may appear to con-
sumers to border on the burdensome. The consumers will naturally be
the ultimate judges as to the value of the service in cases where other
supplies are available and between which and the general city system a
choice may be made. There is evidence before us that many citizens
already depend upon bottled spring water for drinking purposes. In re
Invest. Ashland Water Co., 1914, 14 R. C. 1, 52.
X. METER RATES.
In general.
56. Where conditions of building and climate are such as to admit
of easy and economical introduction of meters, and where the utility is
financially able to install meters, it does not admit of argument that the
meter basis is the correct basis on which to sell water. This is especially
true in cases where the premises supplied are connected with sewer,
cess-pool, or drain, where the waste of water may be very great. In re
Appl. Oconto City W. Supply Co., 1911, 7 R. C. 497, 546.
57. Complaint was made informally that the utility had violated its
rule giving a consumer dissatisfied with the assessed rates the right to
attach a meter and pay for water at meter rates, provided the meter
were attached under the direction and subject to the inspection of the
company and in accordance with the other stipulations set forth in the
rule. Held: As long as this rule remains in effect, the utility is bound
by its provisions and must conduct its business in accordance therewith.
City of Marinette v. City W. Co. of Marinette, 1911, 8 R. G. 334, 385-386.
Straight meter rates.
58. Objection is sometimes offered to the policy of supplying large
consumers at low rates. Watertown furnishes a clear illustration of the
advantages of such a policy. There is no question that if four or five of
the largest consumers should discontinue the use of water from the city
system the utility would be unable to meet its operating expenses and fixed
charges. If water were supplied to all users at a uniform rate the very
352 . Rates-Water. — Meter rates
large users would doubtless find it cheaper to furnish their own supplies
than to buy water from the city. The nature of the waterworks business
is such that a few very large users, supplied at what may appear to be
very low rates, sometimes enable general users to secure rates much more
advantageous than would otherwise be possible. An illustration of this
is the rate fixed by the Commission in the Sparta Case, 12 R. C. 532-
546. Hughes et al. v. Watertown Water Wks., 1914, 14 R. C. 669, 686.
XI. METER RENTAL.
Basis of.
59. A proper rental to be paid by the city in cases where consumers
own their meters should cover the elements of costs of which the city is
relieved by the fact that meters are furnished by consumers. These
costs are the interest, depreciation and taxes on the meters. Alter et al. v.
City of Manitowoc, 1914, 14 R. C. 690, 695.
Rental paid by utility. ,
60. Meter rental to be paid to consumers owning their meters.
City of Janesville v. Janesville Water Co., 1911, 7 R. C. 628; Lothrop v.
Village of Sharon, 1912, 8 R. C. 479; In re Appl. City of Sparta, 1913, 12
R. C. 532; Alter et al. v. City of Manitowoc, 1914, 14 R. G. 690.
XII. MINIMUM CHARGES. '
See Minimum Charges.
XIII. OUTSIDE CONSUMERS.
Rates for.
61. Rates established for consumers of water located outside muni-
cipal limits. In re Appl. Ft. Atkinson W. Sc Lt. Comm., 1913, 12 R. G.
260; In re Appl. Richland Center EL Lt. & W. Plant, 1914, 14 R. C. 590.
XIV. PARTIAL METERING.
Desirability of.
62. The Commission does not recommend complete metering in this
case, but a gradual extension of the meter system is undoubtedly desirable
and the meter rates should be so adjusted that, with the extension of the
meter system, the -rates will be suitable for the changed conditions, so
far as it is possible to secure this result. Town of Vaughn v. Hurley W. Co.,
1914, 14 R. C. 291, 307.
XV. PUBLIC BUILDINGS RATES.
Necessity for making charge.
63. The city should pay for water used for other than protective
purposes in the same way as an individual or a corporation would be ex-
pected and required to pay for a similar use. There appears to be no
Rates-Water.— Reasonableness of adv. in partic. cases 353
reason why a water supply company should be required to furnish water
free to public buildings and schools, and for other public uses, and attempt
to make up for this by additional charges to private consumers. In. re
Appl. Oconto City W. Supply Co., 1911, 7 R. C. 497, 558.
64. Public buildings, schools and churches should be charged for
water on the same basis as other consumers. City of Janesville v. Janes-
ville W. Co., 1911, 7 R. G. 628, 671.
XVI. REASONABLENESS OF ADVANCE IN RATES IN
PARTICULAR CASES.
In general.
65. The question of reasonableness of advances in rates in general
was passed upon in the following cases: In re Appl. Jefferson Mun.
El: Lt. & W. Plant, 1910, 5 R. C. 555; In re Appl. City of Neenah, 1912,
11 R: C. 119; In re Appl. City of Viroqua, 1913, 11 R. C. 330; In re Appl.
Cashton Mun. Lt. Sc W. Comm., 1913, 11 R. C. 410; In re Appl. Village
of Clinton, 1913, 11 R. C. 496; In re Appl. Village of Oregon, 1913, 11 R. C.
548; In re Appl. New Glarus Lt. & W. Plant, 1913, 11 R. C. 711; In re
Appl. City of Delavan, 1913, 12 R. C. 148; In re Appl. Fennimore Mun.
W. & Lt. Plant, 1913, 12 R. C. 194; In re Appl. City of Sparta, 1913,
12 R. C. 532; In re Invest. Ashland Water Co., 1914, 14 R. C. 1; In re
Invest. Ashland Water Co. 1914, 14 R. C. 721; In re Appl. Green Bay
Water Co., 1914, 15 R. C. 84.
Adjustment of rates.
66. Rates adjusted to eliminate inequalities. In re Appl. Park
Falls Municipal Water Wks., 1914, 15 R. C. 284.
Fire protection.
67. Application for authority to increase fire protection rates.
In re Appl. Hillsboro W. Wks. Co., 1911, 8 R. C. 85.
Improvement of service,
68. Rates increased to provide for improved service. In re Appl.
Kenosha Mun. W. Plant, 1914, 15 R. C. 426.
Minimum charge.
69. Application to reduce quantity of water allowed under the mini-
mum charge, dismissed. In re Appl. Madison City W. Wks., 1909,
3 R. C. 299.
70. Application of minimum charge authorized. In re AppU
Oconomowoc Water Dept., 1914, 14 R. C. 394.
Pumping rates.
71. Application for increase in pumping rates denied. In re AppL
Darlington El. Lt. & W. P. Co., 1910, 5 R. C. 397.
12
354 Rates-Water. — Reasonableness of — matters considered
XVII. REASONABLENESS OF RATES— MATTERS CONSIDERED
IN DETERMINING REASONABLENESS.
Cost of service.
72. The best and most equitable rates are perhaps those which are
based on cost, and under which each particular consumer contributes to
the revenues of the company in proportion to the cost to the plant of
serving them. Such rates can not always be determined with mathe-
matical accuracy, although this cost can usually be located within certain
rather narrow limits. In re AppL Madison City W. Wks., 1909, 3 R. C.
299, 313.
73. The most important factor in determining the rate of charge is
the cost of service. City of Beloit v. Beloit W. G. & El. Co., 1911, 7 R. C.
187, 256.
Excessive capitalization.
74. The fact that excessive amounts of securities may have been
issued by public utilities and the further fact that the rates may have
been high enough to yield interest and dividends on the same, would
not justify the continuance of these rates if they had been found to be
unreasonable in other respects. Hilletal. v.Antigo Water Co., 1909, 3
R. C. 623, 726.
Net earnings.
75. The reasonableness of the rates that a public service corporation
may charge the public is determined, in a great measure, by the net
earnings left to the stockholders after deducting from the total operating
revenues the expense of operation and maintenance, amount of annual
depreciation of the plant and all other proper charges. Berend v. Wis.
Tel. Co., 1909, 4 R. C. 150, 155; In re Appl. Oconto City Water Supply
Co., 1910, 5 R. C. 691, 692.
Relation between investment and growth of business.
76. In determining the reasonableness of rates careful inquiries should
be directed to determine the relation between the investment line and the
growth of business line at the particular period or year upon which the
determination of the cost of service and, therefore, the rates are to be
determined. City of Beloit v. Beloit W. G. <k El. Co., 1911, 7 R. C. 187,
289-290.
Rates during experimental period.
77. To permit public utilities to charge relatively high rates during
the experimental period, is often both necessary and in line with good
policy in other respects. Nor is the state estopped from reducing the
rates or from changing the terms to a reasonable basis whenever other
conditions warrant such action. Hill et al. v. Antigo Water Co., 1909,
3 R. C. 623, 726.
Rates-Water. — Reasonableness of in particular cases 355
XVIII. REASONABLENESS OF RATES IN PARTICULAR GASES.
Accounting data.
78. fleasonableness of rates not finally determined because of lack
of accounting data required by law. Fitzgerald et al. v. City of Tomahawk,
1911, 8 R. C. 40; Lothrop v. Village of Sharon, 1912, 8 R. G. 479.
Adjustment of rates.
79. Investigation of application to adjust rates were made in the
following cases: In re Appl. Oconto City W. Supply Co., 1911, 7 R. G.
497; 8 R. G. 388; In re Appl. People's W. Lt. Sc P. Co., 1912, 10 R. G. 651;
In re Invest. Evansville Mun. El. Lt. Sc W. Plant, 1912, 11 R. G. 197;
In re Appl Columbus W. & Lt. Comm., 1913, 11 R. G. 449; In re Appl.
Village of Elkhart Lake, 1913, 11 R. G. 690; Dennett et al. v. City of
Sheboygan, 1914, 14 R. G. 634.
Discriminatory rates.
80. Investigation of alleged unjustly discriminatory rates. Kirwin
et al. V. City of Darlington, 1910, 6 R. G. 26; 408; Rollins et al. v. Village
of Montfort, 1913, 11 R. G. 278; In re Appl. Ft. Atkinson W. Sc Lt. Comm.,
1913, 12 R. G. 260; 729; Kittleson et al. v. Elroy Mun. W. <Sc Lt. Plant,
1914, 14 R. G. 485; Hughes et al. v. Watertown W. Wks., 1914, 14 R. G. 669.
Excessive rates.
81. Investigation of alleged excessive or unreasonable rates. City of
Ashland v. Ashland Water Co., 1909, 4 R. G. 273; City of Ripon v. Ripon
Lt. & W. Co., 1910, 5 R. G. 1; City of Appleton v. Appleton W. Wks. Co.,
1910, 5 R. G. 215; Cunningham et al. v. Chippewa Falls W. Wks. Sc Ltg. Co.,
1910, 5 R. G. 302; Roenitz et al. v. City W. Wks. Comm., Sheboygan, 1910,
5 R. G. 434; City of Washburn v. Washburn W. Wks. Co., 1910, 6 R. G.
74; City of Janesville v. Janesville W. Co., 1911, 7 R. G. 628; Alter et al. v.
City of Manitowoc, 1912, 10 R. G. 387; City of Green Bay v. Green Bay
W. Co., 1913, 11 R. G. 236; In re Invest. Green Bay Water Co., 1913,
12 R. G. 734; Town of Vaughn v. Hurley W. Co., 1914, 14 R. G. 291;
City of Janesville v. Janesville W. Co., 1914, 15 R. G. 117; In re Invest.
Waterloo Mun. W. & El. Plant, 1914, 15 R. G. 534.
Excessive and discriminatory rates.
82. Investigation of alleged excessive and unjustly discriminatory
rates. Hill et al. v. Antigo Water Co., 1909, 3 R. G. 623; Dick et al. v.
Madison Water Comm., 1910, 5 R. G. 731; City of Stevens Pt. v. Stevens
Pt. Water Co., 1911, 6 R. G. 458; City of Beloit v. Beloit W. G. & El. Co.,
1911, 7 R. G. 187; Fitzgerald et al. v. City of Tomahawk, 1911, 8 R. G. 40;
City of Marinette v. City W. Co. of Marinette, 1911, 8 R. G. 334; West
et al. V. City of Eau Claire, 1912, 9 R. G. 134; Civic League et al. v. Beaver
Dam W. Co., 1912, 10 R. G. 661; Superior Comm'l. Club et al. v. Superior
W. Lt. Sc P. Co., 1912, 10 R. G. 704.
Pumping rates.
83. Investigation of alleged excessive pumping rates. Village of
Sharon v. United Ht. Lt. Sc P. Co., 1913, 13 R. G. 1.
356 Rates-Water. — Reconnection charges
XIX. RECONNECTION CHARGES.
Establishment of.
84. Charges established for reconnecting meters where service has
been disconnected. City of Beloit v. Beloit W. G. & El. Co., 1911, 7 R. C.
187; In re Invest. Evansuille El. Lt. Sc W. Plant, 1912, 11 R. C. 197; In re
Appl. Village of Elkhart Lake, 1913, 11 R. C. 690; In re Appl. Ft. Atkinson
W. & Lt. Comm., 1913, 12 R. C. 729.
XX. REGRESSIVE RATES.
Discriminatory nature of.
85. The most evident defect of the old schedule is its regressive
feature, Instead of charging all consumers alike for the first 500 gallons
used per day, for example, the company has charged a consumer who used
400 gallons per day 35 cts. per 1,000 gallons, but a consumer whose use
amounted to 600 gallons per day was charged 30 cts. per 1,000 gallons for
the entire amount, instead of 35 cts. per 1,000 for the first 500 gallons per
day. The result of this has been to enable a consumer to use a larger
amount of water at a total cost less than the cost of a smaller amount.
City of Janesuille v. Janesville W. Co., 1911, 7 R. C. 628, 666-667.
XXI. SERVICE CHARGES.
Establishment of.
86. Service charges established for water service. In re Appl.
Jefferson Mun. El. Lt. Sc W. Plant, 1910, 5 R. C. 555; Dick et al. v. Madison
Water Comm., 1910, 5 R. C. 731; Kirwin et al. v. City of Darlington, 1910,
6 R. C. 26; City of Beloit v. Beloit W. G. & El. Co., 1911, 7 R. C. 187;
In re Appl. Oconto City W. Supply Co., 1911, 7 R. C. 497; City of Janesville
V. Janesville Water Co., 1911, 7 R. C. 628; Fitzgerald et al. v. City of Toma-
hawk, 1911, 8 R. C. 40; City of Marinette v. City Water Co. of Marinette,
1911, 8 R. C. 334; Lothrop v. Village of Sharon, 1912, 8 R. C. 479; West et al.
V. City of Eau Claire, 1912, 9 R. C. 134; Civic League et al. v. Beaver Dam
W. Co., 1912, 10 R. C. 661; In re Appl. Neenah Mun. W. Wks., 1912,
11 R. C. 119; In re Invest. Evansville El. Lt. & W. Plant, 1912, 11 R. C.
197; City of Green Bay v. Green Bay W. Co., 1913, 11 R. C. 236; Rollins
et al. V. Village of Montfort, 1913, 11 R. C. 278; In re Appl. Columbus W.
& Lt. Comm., 1913, 11 R. C. 449; In re Appl. City of Delavan, 1913,
12 R. C. 148; In re Appl. Ft. Atkinson W. <fc Lt. Comm., 1913, 12 R. C.
260; In re Invest. Ashland Water Co., 1914, 14 R. C. 1; In re Appl. Green
Bay Water Co., 1914, 15 R. C. 84.
XXII. SEWER FLUSHING RATES.
See also post, 90.
Establishment of.
87. Rates for sewer flushing established. In re Appl. Oconto City
W. Supply Co., 1911, 7 R. C. 497; City of Janesville v. Janesville Water Co.,
Rates-Water. — Tapping of mains 357
1911, 7 R. C. 628; City of Marinette v. City W. Co. of Marinette, 1911,
8 R. C. 334; In re AppL Citij of Delavan, 1913, 12 R. C. 148; In re Appl.
Fennimore Mun. W. & Lt. Plant, 1913, 12 R. C. 194; /n re Appl City of
Sparta, 1913, 12 R. C. 532; In re Invest. Green Bay Water Co., 1913,
12 R. C. 734; In re Invest. Ashland Water Co., 1914, 14 R. G. 1; Dennett
et at. V. City of Sheboygan, 1914, 14 R. C. 634.
XXIII. SHORT TIME SERVICE.
Rates for.
88. Rate for short time service established. In re AppL Ft. Atkinson
W. & Lt. Comm., 1913, 12 R. C. 729.
XXIV. STREET SPRINKLING RATES.
Establishment of.
89. Rates for street sprinkhng estabUshed. In re Appl. Oconto City
W. Supply Co., 1911, 7 R. G. 497; City of Janesville v. Janesville Water Co.,
1911, 7 R. G. 628; City of Marinette v. City W. Co. of Marinette, 1911,
8 R. C. 334; Civic League et at. v. Beaver Dam W. Co., 1912, 10 R. G. 661;
In re Appl. Neenah Mun. W. Whs., 1912, 11 R. G. 119; /n re Invest. Evans-
ville El. Lt. Sc W. Plant, 1912, 11 R. G. 197; City of Green Bay v. Green Bay
W. Co., 1913, 11 R. G. 236; In're Appl. Columbus W. Sc Lt. Comm., 1913,
11 R. G. 449; In re Appl. Village of Elkhart Lake, 1913, 11 R. G. 690;
In re Appl. Fennimore Mun. W. Sz Lt. Plant, 1913, 12 R. G. 194; In re
Appl. City of Sparta, 1913, 12 R. G. 532; Kittleson et at. v. Elroy Mun.
W. <Sc Lt. Plant, 1914, 14 R. G. 485; In re Invest. Waterloo Mun. W. Sz
El. Plant, 1914, 15 R. G. 534.
Nature of.
90. The use for flushing purposes, for street construction work, and
for street sprinkhng may be considered "off-peak." That is, these are
uses of water which do not occur at times when the maximum demand,
consisting of the demand of domestic and industrial users and the heaviest
demand for fire purposes, is being exerted. These are, therefore, uses
which do not greatly influence the required capacity of the plant, and may
therefore be charged with less in the way of capacity expenses than other
uses. In re Appl. Oconto City W. Supply Co., 1911, 7 R. G. 497, 558-
559; City of Janesville v. Janesville W. Co., 1911, 7 R. G. 628, 671.
XXV. TAPPING OF MAINS.
Charge for.
91. A charge of $5.00 is made for tapping mains. The city furnishes
all connections for making the tap, and all pipe for delivering the water
from the mains to the customer's lot line; provided, however, that not
more than 100 feet of service pipe will be furnished to any one consumer.
In re Appl. Park Falls Mun. W. Wks., 1914, 15 R. C. 284, 285.
358 Ratio of Demand to Connected Load
RATIO OF DEMAND TO CONNECTED LOAD.
Load factor for electric utilities, see Electric Utilities, 18-22.
RAW MATERIALS.
Rates, joint or through rates on raw materials manufactured on originating
line, see Rates Railroad, 100-lOL
REAL PROPERTY.
As element in the valuation of the physical property of public utilities, see
Valuation, 63-12L
Determination of the value of the physical property of public utilities,
value of land, see Valuation, 149-152.
REASONABLE RETURN.
5ee Return.
REASONABLENESS OF RATES.
See Rates.
REBATES OR CONCESSIONS.
5ee also Rates — Electric; Rates — Telephone; Rates — Water.
Allowance of additional compensatory time under demurrage rules in
case of delay in unloading cars, see Demurrage Rules, 1-8.
Limitation of statute, in reparation proceedings, as safeguard against
rebates or concessions, see Reparation, 32.
I. ALLOWANCE TO CONSUMERS OF PUBLIC UTILITY.
II. ALLOWANCE TO SUBSCRIBER OF TELEPHONE UTILITY.
III. CONCESSIONS IN TELEPHONE RATES.
IV. DEPARTURE FROM PUBLISHED RATE.
I. ALLOWANCE TO CONSUMER OF PUBLIC UTILITY.
On account of ownership of instrument or facility.
1. The Public Utilities Law expressly prohibits a utility from charging
a consumer who owns his equipment, or any portion thereof, a lower
rate than that paid by consumers who do not own such equipment, but
provides that in case a consumer owns his equipment the utility may pay
him a reasonable rental for its use. In re Badger Tel. Co., 1908, 3 R. C.
98, 112; In re Invest. Hudson W. Wks., 1908, 3 R. C. 138, 141; City of
Janesville v. Janesvillc W. Co., 1911, 7 R. C. 628, 637; In re Appl. Bruce
W. cfc Lt. 'Comm., 1912, 9 R. C. 474, 476; In re Appl. City of Neenah,
Reconnection 359
1912, 11 R. C. 119, 128; In re Appl. Ft. Atkinson W. & Lt. Comm., 1913,
12 R. C. 260, 303, 313; In re Appl. Neshkoro Lt. Sc P. Co., 1913, 13 R. C.
52, 54; In re Appl Mosinee Tel. Co., 1914, 14 R. G. 709, 710.
II. ALLOWANCE TO SUBSCRIBER OF TELEPHONE UTILITY.
For repairs and equipment rentals.
2. Granting a rebate for repairs and equipment rentals is unlawful-
Knapp et al. v. Matteson Tel. Co., 1912, 11 R. C. 180, 183-184.
On account of ownership of stock,
3. As the Public Utilities Law requires that all customers be treated
alike, it is not possible to make a lower rate to stockholders than to the
others. The only way in which they can be reimbursed is through
dividends declared after allowance has been made for depreciation.
Knapp et al v. Matteson Tel. Co., 1912, 11 R. C. 180, 192; In re Appl.
Rockland Tel. Co., 1913, 11 R. C. 402, 408; In re Appl. Mascoda Mut.
Tel. Co., 1913, 11 R. C. 666, 683; In re Appl. Beef River Valley Tel. Co.,
1913, 12 R. C. 126; In re Appl. Marquette Sc Adams County Tel. Co.,
1914, 14 R. G. 750, 751.
III. CONCESSIONS IN TELEPHONE RATES*.
Reasonableness of.
4. Concessions in rates can often reasonably be made to certain
kinds of telephone subscribers because of the value of connections there-
with to other subscribers. Olson et al. u. Wis. Tel. Co., 1909, 3 R. C. 440,
450.
IV. DEPARTURE FROM PUBLISHED RATE.
Prohibited.
5. A rebate of any part of the duly published rate granted by a
railroad and accepted by a shipper would be in violation of the statutes
and subject both parties to a penalty, unless the same had first been
authorized in accordance with sec. 1797-37/n of the Statutes. Wis.
Coal Co. V. W. C. R. Co., 1909, 3 R. C. 339, 341.
JIECEIVING LINES.
Rates for receiving lines, see Rates — Telephone, 66.
RECONNECTION.
Reconnection of telephone service ordered to prevent discrimination, see
Discrimination, 103.
360 Reconnectlon Charges
RECONNECTION CHARGES.
For electric service, see Rates — Electric, 86.
For gas service, see Rates — Gas, 19.
For heating service, see Rates — Heating, 4.
For telephone service, see Rates — Telephone, 67.
For water service, see Rates — Water, 84.
Regulations for reconnectlon of service, see Rules and Regulations,
38-40.
, ♦
recovery:
See Reparation.
REDUCED RATE SERVICE.
Investigation on motion of the Commission of free and reduced rate
telephone service in Wisconsin, see Rates — Telephone, 23.
Reduced rate tickets may be sold to homeseekers, see Rates — Railroad,
62.
Sec. 1797-8 of the Wis. Stat, does not prevent railroads from furnishing
reduced rate service under certain conditions, see Railroad Law,
13. •
REDUCED RATE TRANSPORTATION.
TRANSPORTATION OF PASSENGERS.
Reduced rates to commuters.
1. The granting of commutation rates for suburban travel is quite
general, and such rates are defensible on various grounds. They tend to
benefit the public by permitting and inducing residence at considerable
distance from the place of occupation, thus aiding the territorial growth
of cities and relieving their congested districts. So far as they have that
effect, such rates in turn benefit the railways by securing business that
otherwise would not exist and revenue not otherwise obtainable. (Sprigg
ei al. V. B. & 0. R. Co. et al, 1900, 8 I. C. C. R. 443.) Lieberman v. C.
M. <Sc St. P. R. Co., 1909, 3 R. C. 330, 332.
REDUCTION OF RATES.
Reduction of rate not to be construed as an admission of prior unreason-
ableness, see Reparation, 18.
Reduction on account of furnishing of facilities by consumer prohibited,
see Discrimination, 13, 40, 91; Rebates or Concessions, 1-2.
Reduction on account of ownership of stock by subscribers, prohibited,
see Discrimination, 90; Rebates or Concessions, 3.
Reduction without authority from Commission, see Rates — Utility, 3.
Relocation of Station 361
REFRIGERATOR CARS.
Refrigerator car service, see Railroads, 81.
REFUNDS.
Refund from charges collected, see Reparation, 36-153.
REFUSAL OF SERVICE.
Refusal of service by electric utility for failure of customer to replace
burned out transformer, see Electric Utilities, 51.
Refusal of service by public utility for nonpayment of bills rendered, see
Rules and Regulations, 31-40.
REGRESSIVE RATES.
Regressive rates for water utility, see Rates — Water, 85.
REGULATION OF RATES.
See Rates.
Authority of Railroad Commission to regulate rates, see Railroad Com-
mission, 110-111, 124-128, 133-136.
REGULATIONS.
See Rules and Regulations.
REHEARING.
Proceedings before Commission, rehearing upon original petitions subse-
quent to vacation of order by court, see Procedure, 11.
rehearing while court review of order of Commission pending, see
Procedure, 12.
RELATION OF RATES.
As matter considered in determining reasonableness of railroad rates, see
Rates — Railroad, 193.
RELATION OF WEIGHT TO SPACE.
Relation of weight of article to space occupied as element considered in
making railroad rates, see Rates — -Railroad, 151-152.
RELOCATION OF STATION.
Relocation of railroad station, for safety purposes, see Station Facili-
ties, 4-6.
362 Relocation of Spur Track
RELOCATION OF SPUR TRACK.
See Switch Connections.
i
RELOCATION OF TELEPHONE EXCHANGE.
So long as no unreasonable expenditures will result, the location of a tele-
phone exchange is a matter to be determined by the utility, see
Telephone Utilities, 29.
REMOVAL CHARGES.
Charges made for removing telephones, see Rates — ^Telephone, 68-69.
RENEWALS.
Nature of.
1. Renewals are not properly additions to the property and plant, and
a statement of original cost which includes such charges has little bearing
upon the fair value of the property used and useful for the convenience of
the public at the present time. In re Appl. Ft. Atkinson W. & Lt. Comm.,
1913, 12 R. C 260, 281.
RENT.
Unpaid rent on water power lease not an element of value in valuation of
property of electric utility, see Valuation, 126.
RENTAL FOR EQUIPMENT.
See also Equipment Rental.
As matter considered in" determining reasonableness of electric rates, see
Rates — Electric, 72.
of telephone rates, see Rates — Telephone, 61.
Rental for equipment and facilities, paid by utility to consumer of electric
utility, see Rates — Electric, 52.
of gas utility, see Rates — Gas, 10.
of water utility, see Rates — Water, 60.
to subscriber of telephone utility, see Rates — Telephone, 14.
Rental for equipment and facilities, paid to utility by consumer of electric
utility, see Rates — Electric, 51.
RENTAL FOR THROUGH LINES.
Apportionment of rental for through lines in the determination of unit
costs for telephone utilities, see Accounting, 163.
REORGANIZATION EXPENSES.
As element in the valuation of public utilities, see Valuation, 122.
Reparation. — In general 363
REPARATION.
I. IN GENERAL.
II. GROUND FOR RECOVERY.
III. JURISDICTION OF COMMISSION.
IV. JURISDICTION OF COURTS.
V. LIMITATION OF STATUTE.
VI. PROCEEDINGS FOR RECOVERY.
VII. REFUNDS.
a. Refund from charge. e. Refund from drayagc charges.
b. Refund from charge based on. f. Refund from excess charge or-
c. Refund from charge caused by. dered on basis of.
d. Refund from demurrage charge, g. Refund from express charge.
I. IN GENERAL
Charges in excess of lawful rates.
1. If the rates charged were not the lawful rates, the company could
have refunded the excess without any authority from the Commission.
Kiel Woodenware Co. v. C. M. & St. P. R. Co., 1909, 3 R. C. 597, 599;
Mason & Martin v. C. & N. W. R. Co., 1912, 9 R. C. 74, 75; Waukesha
Lime & Stone Co. v. C. 3c N. W. R. Co. et al, 1914, 14 R. C. 579, 580.
Conditions under which awarded.
2. The law allows reparation to be awarded a shipper only when,
upon investigation, the Commission shall find and determine that the
schedule rate or charge exacted is either unusual or exorbitant, and, for
the purpose of ascertaining the amount of reparation, shall also deter-
mine what the reasonable rate or charge would have been for the services
rendered by the railway company. Merrill Woodenware Co. v. C. M. <Sc
St. P. R. Co., 1908, 3 R. C. 54, 56.
3. No refund can be granted which is based upon the petitioner's
mere estimate of its loss during any period preceding the making of the
claim, and only the shipments specifically set forth will be considered as
the basis for a refund. Brittingham <Sc Young Co. v. C. M. <Sc St. P. R. Co.,
1911, 8 R. C. 131, 137.
Law authorizing refunds not retroactive.
4. The changing of a rate by the Commission because the same is
found to be unjust and unreasonable, does not render such rate unjust
and unreasonable ab initio. All schedules of rates printed and filed as
required by the act (ch. 362, 1905) were legal and binding upon both
shipper and carrier until changed by the Commission, and any change
made by the Commission in any rates contained in such schedules because
the same are unreasonable, only operates to make such rates unjust and
unreasonable from the time of the taking effect of the new or substituted
rates. Consequently it must follow that a shipper had no legal or moral
claim to any excess charge if the change resulted in a lowering of the rate
which he paid for the service. Oshkosh Logging Tool Co. v. C. Sc N. W.
R. Co., 1907,^2 R. C. 116, 123-124; Connor Land <Sc Lbr. Co. v. C. & N. W.
R. Co., 1911/7 R. C. 774, 778.
364 Reparation. — In General
5. Section 1797-37m (sec. 8, ch. 582, Laws of 1907) is not retroac-
tive. City of Superior v. N. P. R. Co., 1907, 2 R. C. 126, 129; Dells Paper
& Pulp Co. V. C. St. P. M. & 0. R. Co., 1907, 2 R. C. 129, 131.
Legality of refund.
6. While the statute provides that no greater or less compensation
can be charged for a shipment than that named in the published tariffs,
yet inasmuch as the W. C. R. Co. published joint rates of 12 cents per 100
lb. with two other carriers, in the absence of instructior^s as to routing
by the consignor, it was its duty to so route the car as to give the shipper
the benefit of the lowest combination of published rates, and that, failing
to do so, it was liable for the excess charged over and above the lowest
published rates. Hodges v. W. C. R. Co., 1906, 1 R. G. 300, 306.
Overcharges collected in accordance with published rate.
7. It was because of the fact that, when the schedule rate was ex-
acted for any shipment of freight, the shipper was without any redress if
the same was challenged and found upon investigation to be excessive,
that the legislature enacted sec. 1797-37/77 of the Statutes as an amend-
ment to the original Railroad Commission Act. Wis. Coal Co. v. W. C.
R. Co., 1909, 3 R. C. 339, 342.
8. Chapter 271, laws of 1909, conferred power upon the Commission
to authorize refunds on certain accrued claims. The period for filing such
claims was limited to 30 days and the statute, by its terms, expired at
the end of that period. Sec. 1797-37/77, passed in 1907, was regarded as a
statute of limitations and therefore in enacting ch. 271, laws of 1909, the
legislature was cautious not to undertake to create any liability on the
part of the railroads as to claims which might be barred by such section.
Accordingly under ch. 271, sec. 1797-12a the railroads were merely ex-
empted from the penalty of the general statute if reparations were made
by them upon the finding of the Commission. Connor Land & Lbr. Co.
V. C. & N. W. R. Co., 1911, 7 R. C. 774, 780-781.
Overcharges collected in violation of Railroad Commission Act.
9. Section 32, ch. 362, laws of 1905, has no application to a claim
presented upon the ground that the legal rate exacted is either unusual or
exorbitant, but relates to overcharges exacted in violation of the act.
Wis. Coal Co. V. W. C. R. Co., 1909, 3 R. C. 339, 342.
Refund from public utility rates prohibited.
10. Any agreement to make a refund of any part of the rates or
charges in the schedule on file with the Commission is a violation of sees.
1797/n-33 and 1797/77-92 of the Public Utilities Law. Douglass et al. v.
Eguiiable El. Lt. Co., 1913. 12 R. C. 337. 354.
11. GROUND FOR RECOVERY.
Claim based on contract for different rate than that stated in the
published schedule.
11. The fact that an agent of the railway company may have quoted
a different rate to petitioner than the one provided in the published tariff.
Reparation. — Ground for recovery 365
is no ground for a recovery of the amount which petitioner wa? obliged to
pay in excess of the rate so quoted, Merrill Woodenware Co. v. C. M. Sc
Si. P. R. Co., 1908, 3 R. C. 54, 55-56; Barney v. G. B. <k W. R. Co. et al.,
1910, 4 R. C. 775, 776; Osceola Mill and Elevator Co. v. M. St. P. & S. S.
M. R. Co., 1910, 5 R. C. 291, 292; Callaway Fuel Co. v. C. <Sc N. W. R. Co.
et al, 1914, 13 R. C. 694, 697.
Competitive nature of traffic.
12. In the instant case there are considerations in addition to the
general unreasonableness of the rate which make the claims for reparation
valid. These considerations arise out of the competitive nature of some
of the traffic which would have made the shipments in question unavailable
to the respondent unless the lower rates were met. So. Wis. Sand Sc
Gravel Co. v. C. M. Sc St. P. R. Co., 1913, 13 R. C. 380, 384-385.
Damages.
13. While the statute does not require the showing of damages in
order to secure reparation, it may be that the matter of damages may
sometimes be of value as an evidentiary fact tending to show what the
situation has been during the period for which refund is asked. Flambeau
Paper Co. v. C. M. & St. P. R. Co. et al., 1913, 11 R. C. 699, 703.
Existence of a lower rate on a competing line.
14. It has been held repeatedly in reparation cases that a refund may
be granted when a competing line has a lower rate in effect and the respon-
dent railway company could not have participated in the traffic upon its
lawfully published rate. Geo. T. Rowland & Son v. C. & N. W. R. Co.,
1912, 9 R. C. 163; Waukesha Lime & Stone Co. v. M. St. P. & S. S. M.
R. Co., 1912, 9 R. C. 167; So. Wis. Sand Sc Gravel Co. v. C. M. Sc St. P.
R. Co., 1913, 13 R. G. 380, 384.
Ignorance of duly published rate.
15. Ignorance of duly published rates is not a ground for a refund,
though the lawful rates exacted may be in excess of those the railway
company would have been willing to make effective if knowledge of the
proposed shipments had been previously communicated to it. Fountain-
Campbell Lbr. Co. v. C. St. P. M. Sc 0. R. Co., 1908, 3 R. G. 63, 64.
Recent change of classification not a proof of reasonableness of
rate under previous classifications.
16. The fact that a distinction in the various grades of commodity
has been recently made and rates adjusted on the basis of this distinction,
does not prove that the former classification, and the rates applicable
under it, were not unreasonable. Moritz v. C. M. Sc St. P. R. Co., 1914,
13 R. C. 684, 685-686.
Reduced rate may be considered to have been reasonable prior to
the date of its establishment.
17. Although the fixing of a reasonable rate at any given time does
not necessarily imply that this rate would have been reasonable at any
previous point of time, yet neither is it conclusive evidence that the
366 Reparation. — Ground for recovery
new rate would not have been reasonable prior to the date of the order
estabhshing it. Wausau Paper Mills Co. v. C. M. <Sc St. P. R. Co., 1914,
13 R. G. 690, 692-693.
Reduction of rate not to be construed as an admission of prior
unreasonableness.
18. A shipper is not entitled to a refund merely because a railway
company amends a tariff by lowering a rate which a shipper was obliged
to pay for shipments made prior to the amendment. Such a reduction,
independently of other considerations, should not be held to be an admis-
sion on the part of the railway company that the prior rate was either
unusual or exorbitant. Steven & Jarvis Lbr. Co. v. C. St. P. M. & 0. R.
Co., 1907, 2 R. C. 131, 134; Menasha Woodenware Co. v. W. C. R. Co.,
1908, 2 R. C. 589, 592; Beaver Dam Lbr. Co. v. C. St. P. M. & 0. R. Co.,
1908, 2 R. C. 700, 702; Brittingham & Young Co. v. M. St. P. & S. S. M.
R. Co. et al, 1910, 4 R. C. 772, 773; Connor Land Sc Lbr. Co. v. C. & N.
W. R. Co., 1911, 7 R. C. 774, 779; 1912, 8 R. C. 697; Wis. Lakes Ice Sc
Cartage Co. v. C. Sc N. W. R. Co., 1912, 11 R. C. 62, 63-64; Northern Wood
Co. v. M. St. P. Sc S. S. M. R. Co. et al, 1911, 8 R. G. 62, 63; Wausau
Paper Mills Co. v: C. M. Sc St. P. R. Co., 1912, 9 R. G. 400, 404; Flambeau
Paper Co. v. C. M. Sc St. P. R. Co. et al, 1913, 11 R. G. 699, 703; Mitchell
Lewis Motor Co. v. C. M. Sc St. P. R. Co., 1913, 11 R. G. 709, 710; Peshtigo
Lbr. Co. v. C. Sc N. W. R. Co., 1914, 14 R. G. 624, 626, 627.
Refund from charge caused by shipper's error in routing.
19. No authority exists for granting relief to a shipper from a charge
caused by the shipper's own error in routing. Wis. Coal Co. v. W. C. R.
Co., 1909, 3 R. C. 339, 342.
Special rate to manufacturers not basis of recovery for other
shippers.
20. The fact that the rates to manufacturers were lower at the time
of the shipments in question than the rates to coal dealers at the same
points, cannot be made the basis for a refund. So. Milwaukee Fuel Sc
Supply Co. V. C. Sc N. W. R. Co., 1911, 7 R. G. 1, 7.
III. JURISDIGTION OF GOMMISSION.
See also Railroad Gommission, 1-14. *
Authority of Commission in awarding reparation.
21. Before sec. 1797-37/n, ch. 582, laws 1907, was amended by ch.
136 of the laws of 1909, the Railroad Gommission could only authorize
refunds in cases where the charges exacted were in accordance with the
duly published and legal rates in force, and where they were found upon
complaint of a shipper to have been either unusual or exorbitant. The
addition of the words erroneous and illegal broadened the scope of the
statute so as to include all charges, whether in conformity with the legal
tariffs or otherwise. Kiel Wooden Ware Co. v. C. M. Sc St. P. R. Co.,
1909, 3 R. G. 597, 599-600.
Reparation. — Jurisdiction of Comnisslon 367
22. Prior to the enactment of eh. 271, laws of 1909, the Commission
was without authority to authorize reparation for claims that had accrued
prior to the act providing that reparation might be made in certain
instances. Chapter 271 provided for a period of thirty days in which
claims of this character could be submitted to the Commission for in-
vestigation and could be allowed if the Commission should determine that
the charges exacted were either erroneous, unusual or exorbitant.
Ahnapee Veneer & Seating Co. v. C. St. P. M. & 0. R. Co., 1909, 4 R. C.
106, 108; Ahnapee Veneer & Seating Co. v. M. St. P. Sc S. S. M. R. Co.
etat., 1909, 4 R. C. 109, 110.
23. In considering whether reparation may be made in any particular
case, the Commission is confined to determining whether the schedule
rate exacted is exorbitant or unusual, and if it finds such rate either
excessive or unusual, it must ascertain what the reasonable rate would
have been, and the latter rate then not only determines the basis of the
award, but indicates the rate to be established and applied in the future.
Joannes Bros. Co. v. C. M. & St. P. R. Co., 1909, 3 R. C. 422, 424; Mace
Lime Co. v. C. Sc N. W. R. Co., 1909, 3 R. C. 590, 592; Menasha Paper Co.
V. C. M. & St. P. R. Co., 1909, 3 R. C. 620, 622.
24. The Commission cannot under the statute relieve a shipper
from the payment of the lawful established tariff charges but can only
authorize refunds after the payments have been made and have been
duly found to be exorbitant, unusual, illegal and erroneous. When a
shipper considers demurrage rules to be unreasonable, his proper procedure
is to pay the demurrage charges and apply for a refund. Paine Lbr. Co.
Ltd. V. C. & N. W. R. Co., 1914, 13 R. C. 633, 634.
25. While the thing this statute (sec. 1797-37 m) specifically requires
the Commission to find is, "what in its judgment w^ould have been &
reasonable rate or charge for the service complained of," the law further
empowers the complainant to sue for recovery of "the amount of such
excessive charge as found by said commission." In the language last
quoted there would seem to be a clear implication that the Commission
has authority to make a specific finding of the amount of refund authorized.
Rhinelander Paper Co. u. M. St. P. Sz S. S. M. R. Co. e/ a/., 1912, 10 R. C.
632, 633-634.
26. In the present case the loss occasioned to the shipper on account
of extra drayage charges was due to the erroneous and misleading shipping
directions which were given to the respondent's agent by the shipper.
Even if the extra drayage charges incurred in the present case had been
due to the negligence of the railway company and the shipper had a
valid claim for the loss incurred, it could not be enforced in a reparation
proceeding nor in any proceeding before the Commission. Damages in
such a case, if due to the negligence of the carrier, can be recovered only
in an action in court. The Commission has no jurisdiction in the matter.
Deeves Lbr. Co. v. C. & N. W. R. Co., 1912, 8 R. C. 507, 509-510.
27. The claim for reparation on the carload of coal shipped from
Escanaba, Mich., to Long Lake, is beyond the jurisdiction of the Com-
mission for the reason that the shipment was interstate. Hale-Mytrea
Lbr. Co. V. C. Sc N. W. R. Co., 1913, 12 R. C. 709, 710.
" 368 Reparation. — Jurisdiction of courts
IV. JURISDICTION OF COURTS.
Jurisdiction in cases involving overcharges upon which the limi-
tation of the statute has run.
28. It may not be inappropriate under the circumstances to express
the view of the Commission that no action in court can be instituted to
recover any alleged overcharge exacted by the carrier until the Commission
has condemned under the statute the charge actually collected. Since
the jurisdiction of the Commission is limited to a six months' period, it
cannot investigate the reasonableness of the charges made at any time
previous, and a finding that a rate is exorbitant or unusual at any given
time is not a condemnation of such rate for any other time previous thereto.
The Commission is constrained to hold that the act of 1905 superseded
the common law and that the amendment (sec. 1797-37/n) to the act is
not merely remedial in its character, nor does it merely give a remedy
for an existing right. It confers the right and provides the remedy to
enforce it. The contention that sec. 1797-37/n did not bar the common
law remedy is not valid. Connor Land & Lbr. Co. v. C. Sc N. W. R. Co.,
1911, 7 R. C. 774, 776-778.
V. LIMITATION OF STATUTE.
Claim for refund barred by the limitation of the statute.
29. No refund can be authorized on account of shipments upon
which the limitation of the statute has run. Menasha Paper Co. u.
W. C. R. Co., 1908, 2 R. C. 300, 301; Stolte, Dangel and Foss Co. v. C.
& N. W. R. Co., 1909 3 R. C. 335, 336; Pabst Brwg. Co. v. C. & N. W. R.
Co., 1909, 4 R. C. 173, 174; Sinaiko Bros. v. C. M. & St. P. R. Co., 1910,
5 R. C. 426, 428; Wis. Fruit Package Co. v. Wis. & N. R. Co. et al., 1910,
5 R. C. 642; Pelletier & Co. v. C. St. P. M. <Sc 0. R. Co. et al., 1910, 5 R. C.
721, 725; Pulpwood Co. of Appleton u. M. St. P. Sc S. S. M. R. Co. et al.,
1910, 6 R. C. 175, 177; McEachron Co. v. C. & N. W. R. Co., 1911, 6 R. C.
667, 668; Clark v. M. Si. P. <Sc S. S. M. R. Co., 1911, 8 R. C. 38, 39; Mears-
Slayton Lbr. Co. v. Wis. & N. R. Co. et al., 1911, 8 R. C. 247, 249; So.
Milwaukee Fuel & Supply Co. v. C. & N. W. JR. Co., 1912, 8 R. C. 473, 476;
Francey Coal, Stone & Supply Co. v. C. M. Sc St. P. R. Co., 1912, 8 R. C.
477, 478; New Richmond Roller Mills Co. v. F. <Sc N. E. R. Co. et al.,
1913, 11 R. C. 272, 273; Badger Basket Sc Veneer Co. v. M. St. P. Sc S. S.
M. R. Co., 1913, 11 R. C. 492. 494-495.
Computation of period of limitation.
30. Any informal complaint relative to any overcharge upon ship-
ments of freight has always been regarded both by the interstate commerce
commission and this Commission as sufficient to stop the running of the
statute of limitations upon the claim. In such instances, although
formal petition under the rules of practice of this Commission may not
have been filed until after the limitation provided in the statute has
expired, the Commission has considered that the informal complaint to
the Commission stopped the running of the statute, and therefore repara-
Reparation. — Proceedings for recoverif 369
tion has been awarded in such cases. Oshkosh Fuel Co. v. C. Sc N. W. R.
Co., 1910, 6 R. C. 222, 224; Duliith Superior Milling Co. v. N. P. R. Co.,
1911, 7 R. C. 459, 461-462.
31. In Adew of the fact that the statute of Umitations was enlarged
by amendment and that none of the shipments made were barred before
such amended statute became effective, the claims presented come within
the limitations of the amended statute. (Osborn v. Jaines, 1863, 17 Wis.
573; Pleasants v. Rohrer, 1863, 17 Wis. 577.) Mayer v. C. & N. W. R. Co.
e/ a/., 1911, 8 R. C. 328, 329-330; Northern Wood Co. v. C. M. & St. P.
R. Co., 1913, 11 R. C. 706, 707; Foster-Latimer Lbr. Co. v. M. St. P. &
S. S. M. R. Co., 1913. 12 R. C. 239, 240.
Purpose of limitation.
32. The difficulty of ascertaining all the facts essential to a decision
of the question in a reparation case for any length of time in the past, and
the danger for this reason of again opening the door to the practice of re-
bating, doubtless influenced the legislature in limiting the scope of the
investigation to such shipments as reached their destination within a pe-
riod of six months, now one year, before complaint is made. Connor
Land & Lbr. Co. v. C. & N. W. R. Co., 1911, 7 R. C. 774, 779.
VI. PROCEEDINGS FOR RECOVERY.
Nature of.
33. According to the usual practice of the Commission the matter of
refunds is determined in a separate proceeding based upon a formal pet-
tion therein. Duluth-Superior Milling Co. v. N. P. R. Co., 1911, 7 R C.
459, 461-462.
Person aggrieved must petition Commission.
34. The practice of one claimant instituting proceedings to recover
not only the excessive charges exacted upon his own shipments but also
for the purpose of obtaining refunds to other claimants upon like ship-
ments, who were not parties to the proceedings, is not permitted by the
statute. So. Milwaukee Fuel & Supply Co. v. C. & N. W. R. Co., 1912,
8 R. C. 473, 476; Wausau Advancement Assn. v. C. & N. W. R. Co., 1913,
12 R. C. 433, 438; 1914, 13 R. C. 772. 774.
When one of joint carriers is not a party.
35. In the present case, while reparation is authorized on joint ship-
ments, one of the carriers is not a party to the proceedings and no finding
herein made will be efTective as to the joint transportation. Nevertheless,
as the claim was filed within the statutory period a valid finding could be
made as to such joint transportation in a subsequent proceeding against
both carriers. Under the circumstances both carriers will be permitted
to make reparation without further proceedings. Barker & Stewart Lbr.
Co. V. C. M. <Sc St. P. R. Co., 1913. 11 R. C. 537. 547.
370 Reparation. — Refunds
VII. REFUNDS.
a. REFUND FROM CHARGE.
Exacted in error.
36. Foster-Latimer Lbr. Co. v.. M. St. P. & S. S. M. R, Co., 1913, 12
R. C. 239; Bailey Mfg. Co. v. C. & N. W. R. Co., et at., 1913, 12 R. C. 699;
Selle & Co. V. M. St. P. & S. S. M. R. Co., 1914, 13 R. C. 635; Franzen 6c
Co. V. M. St. P. & S. S. M. R. Co., 1914, 14 R. C. 77; Owen & Bro. Co. v.
C. & N. W. R. Co., 1914, 14 R. C. 79; Selle Sc Co. v. C. St. P. M. d: 0. R.
Co. et at., 1914, 14 R. C. 225; Miller v. C. Sc N. W. R. Co., 1914, 14 R. G.
707.
For transit privileges.
37. Hoyt & Bergen v. C. & N. W. R. Co., 1912, 8 R. G. 532.
In excess of canceled concentration rate subsequently reinstated
on order of Commission.
38. Alart & McGuire v. G. B. <Sc W. R. Co., 1908, 2 R. G. 340; Stolte,
Dangel Sc Foss Co. v. C. Sc N. W. R. Co., 1909, 3 R. G. 335; Ellis & Sons v.
C. Sc N. W. R. Co., 1909, 3 R. G. 337; Webb Produce Co. v. C. Sc N. W.
R. Co., 1909, 3 R. G. 338.
In excess of transit rate subsequently made effective.
39. Osceola Mill Sc Elevator Co. v. M. St. P. Sc S. S. M. R. Co., 1910,
4 R. G. 483; Blodgett Milling Co. v. C. Sc N. W. R. Co., 1914, 14 R. G. 771.
In excess of transit rate subsequently made eflfective on order of
the Commission.
40. Mason Sc Martin v. C. Sc N. W. R. Co., 1912, 9 R. G. 74.
b. REFUND FROM CHARGE BASED ON.
Actual weight instead of estimated weight.
41. Hale-Mulrea Co. v. C. Sc N. W. R. Co., 1912. 10 R. G. 639.
Carload rates instead of trainload rates, on account of failure of
carrier to furnish sufficient cars.
42. Heineman Lbr. Co. u. C. M. Sc St. P. R. Co., 1912, 9 R. G. 281.
Check weight instead of weight show^n at shipping point.
43. Wheeler-Timlin Lbr. Co. v. C. M. Sc St. P. R. Co.^ 1910, 6 R. G.
434.
Class rates and higher then ordinary commodity rates prevailing
under like conditions and also higher than the cost of
transportation warrants.
44. Mayer v. I. C. R. Co. et at., 1909, 4 R. G. 268.
Class rates and in excess of commodity rates applicable to coni-
modities of a similar character.
45. Fergot v. C. Sc N. W. R. Co., 1909. 4 R. G. 248.
Reparation. — Refunds 371
Class rates and in excess of commodity rates for emergency case.
46. Elmore-Benjamin Coal Co. v. C. & N. W. R. Co., 1912, 9 R. C. 396.
Class rates and in excess of commodity rates previously in effect
and subsequently made effective.
47. Higgins Spring & Axle Co. v. C. Sc N. W. R. Co., 1912, 9 R C.
180.
Class rates and in excess of commodity rates subsequently made
effective.
48. Jahns Co. v. M. St. P. & S. S. M. R. Co., 1910, 5 R. C. 480;
Pape V. C. & N. W. R. Co., 1912, 8 R. C. 566.
Class rates and in excess of commodity rates subsequently made
effective for intermediate point.
49. Mitchell Brwg. Co. v. C. & N. W. R. Co. et al., 1910, 6 R. C. 18.
Class rates instead of joint concentration rates.
50. Borden Co. v. L. C. Sc S. E. R. Co. et al, 1913, 11 R. C. 439.
Commodity rates instead of class rates properly applicable.
51. Rom Co. V. C. M. Sc St. P. R. Co., 1911, 8 R. C. 325.
Commodity rates instead of switching charge in legal effect.
52. MoTse V. C. M. Sc St. P. R. Co., 1911, 6 R. C. 531.
Commodity rates instead of switching rate in eflfect at the time
the shipment moved.
t
53. Francey Coal, Stone Sc Supply Co. v. C. M. Sc St. P. R. Co., 1912,
8 R. C. 477.
Commodity switching charge instead of general switching charge
subsequently made effective.
54. Superior Crushed Rock Co. v. C. St. P. M. Sc 0. R. Co., 1910,
6 R. C. 219.
Distance rate and in excess of commodity rate subsequently made
effective.
55. Broughton v. C. Sc N. W. R. Co., 1910, 5 R. C. 432.
Distance rate instead of concentration rate claimed by shipper.
56. Krouskop v. C. M. Sc St. P. R. Co., 1911, 8 R. C. 32.
Distance tariff rate instead of a general switching charge.
57. Rhinelander Paper Co. v. M. St. P. Sb S. S. M. R. Co., 1914, 15
R. C. 171.
Distance tariff rate instead of the switching charge subsequently
made effective.
58. Sinaiko Bros. v. C. M. Sc St. P. R. Co., 1910, 5 R. C. 426; Superior
Crushed Rock Co. v. C. St. P. M. Sc 0. R. Co., 1910, 5 R. C. 449; Western
Ind. Constr. Co. v. C. M. Sc St. P. R. Co., 1911, 8 R. C. 309; Gillette-0' Leary
372 Reparation, — Refunds
Co. V. M. St. P. & S. S. M. R. Co., 1913, 11 R. C. 276; Rusk Box & Furniture
Co. V. M. St. P. & S. S. M. R. Co., 1914, 14 R. G. 136; Mason-Donaldson
Lbr. Co. V. M. St. P. & S. S. M. R. Co., 1914, 15 R. G. 388.
b. REFUND FROM CHARGE BASED ON — Continued
Higher rates than those ordered by the Commission.
59. Barker-Stewart Lbr. Co. et al. v. C. M. Sc St. P. R. Co., 1915, 15
R. G. 645.
Higher rate than was applicable, but also based on a lower mini-
mum weight than the railroad company was bound to
apply under the circumstances.
60. Oshkosh Fuel Co. v. C. M. & St. P. R. Co., 1910, 6 R. G. 199.
Improper routing.
61. Hodges v. W. C. R. Co., 1906, 1 R. G. 300; Callaway Fuel Co. v.
C. & N. W. R. Co. et al., 1914, 13 R. G. 694.
Minimum weight increased through inadvertence and subse-
quently lowered.
62. Stange Co. v. C. M. & St. P. R. Co., 1910, 5 R. G. 596.
Minimum weight of larger capacity car furnished at the con-
venience of the carrier instead of the minimum weight of
the car ordered by the shipper.
63. Franke Grain Co. v. C. & N. W. R. Co., 1908, 3 R. G. 182; Bartletl
& Son Co. V. C. Sc N. W. R. Co., 1909, 3 R. G. 451; Roddis Lbr. & Veneer
Co. V. C. St. P. M. & 0. R. Co., 1911, 6 R. G. 571; Colby Cheese Box & Silo
Co. V. M. St. P. & S. S. M. R. Co., 1914, 15 R. G. 469; Stevens v. C. & N. W.
R. Co., 1914, 15 R. G. 524.
Minimum weight of smaller capacity cars furnished at the con-
venience of the carrier instead of the minimum weight of
the cars ordered by the shipper.
64. Morgan v. M. St. P. & S. S. M. R. Co., 1911, 8 R. G. 34; Kiel
Wooden Ware Co. v. C. M. & St. P. R. Co., 1912, 9 R. G. 278; Oshkosh Fuel
Co. V. C. & N. W. R. Co., 1914, 13 R. G. 775.
Minimum weight rule for close of shipping season.
65. Bacon Sc Co. v. M. St. P. Sc S. S. M. R. Co., 1912, 9 R. G. 468.
Minimum weight which cannot be loaded.
66. Albert Trostel Sc Sons v. W. C. R. Co., 1908, 2 R. G. 761 ; Mace
Lime Co. v. C. Sc N. W. R. Co., 1909, 3 R. G. 590; Druecker v. C. Sc N. W.
R. Co., 1909, 3 R. G. 594; Minneapolis Lbr. Co. v. N. P. R. Co., et al., 1909,
4 R. G. 206; Oshkosh Bottle Wrapper Co. v. C. M. Sc St. P. R. Co., 1909,
4 R. C. 333; Standard Lime Sc Stone Co. v. C. M. Sc St. P. R. Co. et al.,
1912, 9 R. G. 228; Maxson Lbr. Co. v. C. Sc N. W. R. Co., 1913, 11 R. G.
269; Oshkosh Fuel Co. v. C. Sc N. W. R. Co., 1913, 11 R. G. 400; Barker Sc
Stewart Lbr. Co. v. C. M. Sc St. P. R. Co., 1913, 11 R. G. 537; Allen v.
C. M. Sc St. P. R. Co., 1913: 12 R. G. 95; Westboro Lbr. Co. v. M. St. P. Sc
S. S. M. R. Co., 1913, 13 R. G. 378; Rhinelander Paper Co. v. M. St. P. Sc
S. S. M. R. Co., 1914, 15 R. G. 171.
Reparation. — Refunds 373
Minimum weight which could not be loaded and which was sub-
sequently lowered.
67. Badger Basket Sc Veneer Co. v. M. St. P. & S. S. M. R. Co., 1913,
11 R. C. 492; Oshkosh Excelsior Mfg. Co. v. M. St. P. & S. S. M. R. Co.,
1914, 15 R. C. 178.
Minimum weight which was estimated on a measurement in
excess of the foot measurement reasonably applicable.
68. Oshkosh Fuel Co. v. C. & N. W. R. Co., 1910, 6 R. G. 226.
Minimum weight w^hich was subsequently lowered.
69. Ives Co. V. M. St. P. <Sc S. S. M. R. Co., 1910, 5 R. C. 675; Pietsch
Iron Wks. v. C. Sc N. W. R. Co., 1911, 6 R. C. 540; Menasha Woodenware
Co. V. M. St. P. & S. S. M. R. Co., 1913, 11 R. C. 746; Oglebay, Norton &
Co. D. M. St. P. & S. S. M. R. Co. et ai, 1913, 12 R. G. 716.
Rates higher than rates for other kinds of traffic.
70. Wausau Paper Mill Co. v. C. M. cfc St. P. R. Co., 1913, 11 R C.
417.
Rate higher than rate effective between same points on a com-
peting line.
71. Superior Mfg. Co. v. C. St. P. M. & 0. R. Co., 1914, 15 R. G. 160.
Rates higher than the rates exacted from more distant points.
72. Leonard Seed Co. v. C. St. P. M. & 0. R. Co. et al., 1914, 14 R G.
97.
Rates higher than the rates prevailing on other roads under sub-
, stantially similar conditions, and also higher than the cost
of transportation warrants.
73. Brown Bros. Lbr. Co. v. M. St. P. & S. S. M. R. Co. et al., 1910,
5 R. G. 663; Pelletier & Co. v. C. St. P. M. Sc 0. R. Co., et al., 1910, 5 R. G.
721; Perley Lowe Sc Co. v. W. Sc M. R. Co., 1912, 11 R. G. 108.
»
Rates higher than the rates prevailing under substantially similar
conditions and also higher than the cost of transportation
warrants.
74. Krouskop v. C. M. Sc St. P. R. Co., 1910, 6 R. G. 178, 184; Mc-
Eachron Co. v. C. Sc N. W. R. Co., 1911, 6 R. G. 667; So. Milwaukee Fuel Sc
Supply Co. V. C. Sc N. W. R. Co., 1911, 7 R. G. 1; Brittingham Sc Young
Co. V. C. M. Sc St. P. R. Co., 1911, 8 R. G. 131; So. Milwaukee Fuel Sc
Supply Co. V. C. Sc N. W. R. Co., 1912, 8 R. G. 473; Wis. Lakes Ice Sc
Cartage Co. v. C. S: N. W. R. Co., 1912, 9 R. G. 101; Rhinelander Paper Co.
V. M. St. P. Sc S. S. M. R. Co., 1912, 9 R. G. Ill; Wausau Paper Mills Co.
V. C. M. Sc St. P. R. Co., 1912, 9 R. G. 400; Schultz v. C. M. Sc St. P. R.
Co., 1912, 10 R. G. 370; Wis. Lakes Ice Sc Cartage Co. v. C. Sc N. W. R. Co.,
1912, 11 R. G. 62; Flambeau Paper Co. v. C. M. Sc St. P. R. Co. et al,
1913, 11 R. G. 699; Johnson Sc Hill Co. v. M. St. P. Sc S. S. M. R. Co.,
1914, 14 R. G. 752; Creamery Package Mfg. Co. v. M. St. Sc. S. S. M.
R. Co., 1914, 14 R. G. 761.
374 Reparation. ^-Refunds
b. REFUND FROM CHARGE BASED ON— Continued
Rates higher than the rates prevailing under substantially similar
conditions, and also on a reasonable rate subsequently
made effective.
75. Browndeer Lbr. Sc Fuel Co. v. G. B. & W. R. Co., 1914, 14 R. C.
138, 139.
Rates in excess of those previously established by order of the
Commission.
76. Pulpwood Co. of Appleton v. M. St. P. Sc S. S. M. R. Co., 1910,
6 R. C. 175.
Rate previously held to be unreasonable by the Commission.
77. Mason-Donaldson Lbr. Co. v. M. St. P. & S. S. M. R. Co., 1914,
14 R. C. 82; Fargo v. C. M. Sc St. P. R. Co., 1914, 15 R. C. 162.
Rate subsequently held to be unreasonable by the Commission.
78. Pulp Wood Co. V. C. St. P. M. Sc 0. R. Co., 1908, 2 R. C. 250
Daniel Shaw Lbr. Co. v. C. St. P. M. Sc 0. R. Co., 1908, 2 R. C. 342
Edward Nines Lbr. Co. v. C. St. P. M. Sc 0. R. Co., 1908, 2 R. C. 390
Wausau Advancement Assn. v. C. Sc N. W. R. Co., 1913, 12 R. C. 433
So. Wis. Sand Sc Gravel Co. v. C. M. Sc St. P. R. Co., 1913, 13 R. C. 380
Northern Milling Co. v. C. Sc N. W. R. Co., 1914, 13 R. C. 468; Peshtigo
Lbr. Co. V. C. Sc N. W. R. Co., 1914, 14 R. C. 624; John Gund Brwg. Co.
V. C. M. Sc St. P. R. Co., 1914, 15 R. C. 82; Central Wis. Traffic Bur. v.
C. M. Sc St. P. R. Co., 1914, 15 R. C. 521; Mason-Donaldson Lbr. Co. v.
C. Sc N. W. R. Co., 1915, 15 R. C. 575; John H. Allen Seed Co. v. C. Sc
AT. W. i?. Co. e/ a/., 1915, 15 R. C. 641.
Schedule of rates not filed at the station and therefore not in
legal effect.
79. Kiel Wooden Ware Co. v. C. M. Sc St. P. R. Co., 1909, 3 R. C. 597.
Schedule of rates not filed with the Commission and therefore
not in legal effect.
80. Whittet v. C. M. Sc St. P. R. Co., 1910, 4 R. C. 480.
Sum of the locals instead of the group rates subsequently made
effective.
81. Barker Sc Stewart Lbr. Co. v. C. Sc N. W. R. Co., 1912, 11 R. C. 141.
Sum of the locals instead of on the reasonable group rate which
should have been in effect.
82. Pounder v. C. Sc N. W. R. Co. et at., 1913, 12 R. C. 219.
Sum of the locals instead of the through commodity rates subse-
quently made effective.
83. A. C. Parfrey Mfg. Co. v. C. M. Sc St. P. R. Co. et at., 1912,
9 R. C. 517.
Reparation. — Refunds 375
Sum of the locals instead of through rates.
84. Badger Co. v. M. St. P. <Sc S. S. M. R. Co. et al, 1911, 8 R. G. 125;
1913, 11 R. G. 434; John Schroeder Lbr. Co. v. C. Sc N. W. R. Co. et al.,
1914, 14 R. G. 823; Vesper Wood Mfg. Co. v. G. B. <Sc W. R. Co. et al.,
1914, 15 R. G. 442; Stevens v. C. <Sc N. W. R. Co., 1914, 15 R. G. 524.
Sum of the locals instead of through rates subsequently made
effective.
85. Northern Wood Co. v. M. St. P. & S. S. M. R. Co. el al, 1911,
8 R. G. 62.
Sum of the locals instead of through rate to point beyond.
86. Blackwell & Kaiser v. C. M. <k St. P. R. Co. et al, 1913, 11 R. G.
267.
Sum of the locals instead of through rates with stoppage in transit
privileges in effect previous to shipment and subsequently
made effective.
87. New Richmond Roller Mills Co. v. C. St. P. M. <Sc 0. R. Co., 1910,
4 R. G. 488.
Switching charge which is excessive as compared with the recip-
rocal switching rate.
88. Waukesha Lime cfc Stone Co. v. C. M. Sc St. P. R. Co. et al., 1914,
13 R. G. 534.
Trackage rate.
89. New Dells Lbr. Co. v. C. St. P. M. Sc 0. R. Co., 1914, 14 R. G.
186.
Track scale weights instead of the actual scale in accordance with
the published schedule.
90. Shong S: Son v. S. M. Sc P. R. Co., 1908, 3 R. G. 40.
Unreasonable minimum weights and charges for excess weight
on logs.
91. Brown Bros. Lbr. Co. v. M. St. P. Sc S. S. M. R. Co., 1915, 15
R. G. 569.
Unreasonable rate and minimum weight and failure to absorb
switching charges out of line haul earnings.
92. Waukesha Lime Sc Stone Co. v. C. Sc N. W. R. Co. et al., 1913,
13 R. G. 368; 1914, 15 R. G. 479.
c. REFUND FROM CHARGE CAUSED BY.
Applying the regular class rate instead of the commodity rate
applicable.
93. Benesch Bros. v. C. Sc N. W. R. Co., 1909, 3 R. G. 383.
Applying the wrong rate to shipment.
94. Brandel v. C. Sc N. W. R. Co., 1910, 4 R. G. 498.
376 Reparation. — Refunds
c. REFUND FROM CHARGE CAUSED BY — Continued
Charging the regular distance tariff rate instead of the switching
charge subsequently made effective.
95. La Crosse Water P. Co. v. C. St. P. M. & 0. R. Co., 1910, 4 R. C.
412; 6 R. C. 173.
Diversity of rates in the tariffs on different divisions of carrier's
line.
96. Sullivan v. M. St. P. & S. S. M. R. Co., 1914, 13 R. C. 687.
Failure of carrier to absorb switching charges.
97. Blodgett Milling Co. v. C. & N. W. R. Co., 1914, 13 R. C. 782.
Failure of carrier to absorb switching charges correctly.
98. Waukesha Lime <Sc Stone Co. v. M. St. P. & S. S. M. R. Co. et al.,
1913, 13 R. G. 372.
Failure of carrier to absorb switching charges out of line haul
earnings.
99. Waukesha Lime & Stone Co. v. C. Sc N. W. R. Co. et al, 1913,
13 R. C. 368.
Failure of carrier to apply the correct commodity rate.
100. Green Bag Box Sc Lbr. Co. v. W. & M. R. Co. et al, 1909, 3 R. G.
362.
Failure of carriers to put in legal effect a stoppage in transit privi-
lege in connection with a joint through rate.
101. Whittet V. C. M. & St. P. R. Co. et al., 1909, 4 R. G. 195.
Failure to include petitioner within the terms of a switching
tariff.
102. Milwaukee Structural Steel Co. v. C. M. &: St. P. R. Co., 1914,
13 R. G. 673.
Failure through inadvertence to put into legal effect a lower rate
previously in effect and subsequently made effective.
103. Beaver Dam Lbr. Co. v. C. St. P. M. & 0. R. Co., 1908, 2 R. G.
703; Stanz Co. v. M. St. P. & S. S. M. R. Co., 1911, 6 R. G. 579; Lindsay
Bros. v. M. St. P. & S. S. M. R. Co., 1911, 7 R. G. 17; Higgins Spring &
Axle Co. V. C. M. & St. P. R. Co., 1911, 8 R. G. 283; Philadelphia <k R. C.
& Co. V. M. St. P. & S. S. M. R. Co., 1912, 8 R. G. 542; Keith & Hiles Lbr.
Co. V. M. St. P. & S. S. M. R. Co. e/ a/., 1912, 9 R. G. 57; Ahnapee Veneer
<Sc Seating Co. v. M. St. P. & S. S. M. R. Co., 1912, 9 R. G. 482; Western
Elevator Co. v. C. <Sc N. W. R. Co., 1913, 12 R. G. 184.
Failure through inadvertence to put into legal effect a lower rate
subsequently made effective.
104. Stange-Ellis Lbr. Co. v. C. M. & St. P. R. Co., 1908, 2 R. G. 773
Merrill Woodenware Co. v. C. M. & St. P. R. Co., 1908, 3 R. G. 54
Fountain-Campbell Lbr. Co. v. C. St. P. M. & O. R. Co., 1908, 3 R. G. 63
Steven & Jarvis Lbr. Co. v. C. St. P. M. & 0. R. Co., 1908, 3 R. G. 66
Reparation. — Refunds 377
Lindsay Bros. v. C. M. d: St. P. R. Co., 1908, 3 R. C. 114; Flavion u. C. M.
& St. P. R. Co., 1909, 3 R. G. 385; Britton Cooperage Co.' v. C. M. & St.
P. R. Co., 1909, 3 R. C. 386; 388; Price v. W. & N. R. Co. et al., 1909
3 R. C. 467; Milwaukee-Western Fuel Co. v. C. & N. W. R. Co., 1909,
3 R. C. 517; Kemmeter v. C. St. P. M. & 0. R. Co., 1909, 3 R. C. 518;
Selle iSc Co. v. C. St. P. M. & 0. R. Co. et al., 1909, 3 R. C. 595; Kenfield
& Lamoreaux Lhr. Co. v. C. St. P. M. & 0. R. Co., 1909, 3 R. G. 600;
Ahnapee Veneer & Seating Co. v. C. St. P. M. & 0. R. Co., 1909, 4 R. G.
106; Ahnapee Veneer & Seating Co. v. M. St. P. &. S. S. M. R. Co. et al.,
1909, 4 R. G. 109; Johns-Manville Co. v. C. M. & St. P. R. Co., 1909,
4 R. G. 114; Ideal Lbr. & Coal Co. v. C. M. & St. P. R. Co., 1909, 4 R. G.
171; Pabst Brwg. Co. v. C. & N. W. R. Co., 1909, 4 R. G. 173; Gund Brwg.
Co. V. C. & N^. W. R. Co., 1909, 4 R. G. 190; Shaw Lbr. Co. v. C. St. P.
M. Sc 0. R. Co., 1909, 4 R. G. 319; Ewer v. C. St. P. M. Sc 0. R. Co., 1909,
4 R. G. 331; Higgins Spring & Axle Co. v. C. M. & St. P. R. Co., 1909,
4 R. G. 384; Pabst Brwg. Co. v. C. cfc N. W. R. Co., 1910, 4 R. G. 403;
Kaiser Lbr. Co. v. C. St. P. M. & 0. R. Co., 1910, 5 R. G. 196; Bell & Co.
V. G. B. & W. R. Co. et al., 1910, 5 R. G. 430; Beaver Dam Lbr. Co. v.
C. St. P. M. & 0. R. Co., 1910, 5 R. G. 645; Sprague Lbr. Co. v. C. St. P.
M. & 0. R. Co., 1910, 5 R. G. 666; Buswell Lbr. & Mfg. Co. v. C. M. &
St. P. R. Co., 1910, 6 R. G. 217; Wis. Pulp & Paper Mfrs. v. M. St. P. &
S. S. M. R. Co., 1911, 8 R. G. 16; Wis. River Paper & Pulp Co. v. C. &
N. W. R. Co. et al., 1911, 8 R. G. 64; Milwaukee Bag Co. v. M. St. P. Sc
S. S. M. R. Co. et al., 1912, 9 R. G. 182; A. H. Stange Co. v. C. M. Sc St.
P. R. Co., 1913, 11 R. G. 725.
Failure to apply the lowest rate applicable to intermediate point.
105. Bacon Co. v. M. St. P. Sc S. S. M. R. Co., 1912, 9 R. G. 62.
Failure to enforce classification rule at time shipment was oifered.
106. New Richmond R. M. Co. v. C. St. P. M. Sc 0. R. Co., 1908,
2 R. G. 610.
Failure to make allowance for car stakes.
107. Yawkey-Bissel Lbr. Co. v. C. Sc N. W. R. Co., 1910, 6 R. G.21;
Torrey Cedar Co. v. C. Sc N. W. R. Co., 1912, 9 R. G. 185; Pulp Wood Co.
V. C. Sc N. W. R. Co., 1912, 11 R. G. 144; Rhinelander Paper Co. v. M. St.
P. «& S. 5. M. i?. Co., 1913, 13 R. G. 84; Brown Bros. Lbr. Co. v. M. St.
P. Sc S. S. M. R. Co., 1914, 14 R. G. 204; John Schroeder Lbr. Co. v.
M. St. P. Sc S. S. M. R. Co., 1914, 14 R. G. 542.
Failure to protect an intermediate point.
108. Torrey Cedar Co. v. C. Sc N. W. R. Co., 1912, 9 R. G. 185; Sprague
Lbr. Co. v. C. St. P. M. Sc 0. R. Co., 1914, 14 R. G. 289.
Failure to protect an intermediate point in a rate which was sub-
sequently extended to cover the more distant points.
109. Wolfv. C. M. Sc St. P. R. Co., 1913, 13 R. G. 375; Peshtigo Lbr.
Co. V. C. M. Sc St. P. R. Co. et at., 1914, 14 R. G. 188.
378 Reparation. — Refunds
c. REFUND FROM CHARGE CAUSED BY — Continued
Failure to protect an intermediate point in a rate which was sub-
sequently extended to cover such point.
110. Beaver Dam Lbr. Co. v. C. St. P. M. & 0. R. Co., 1908, 2 R. C.
700; Northern Wood Co. v. C. M. cfc St. P. R. Co., 1913, 11 R. C. 706, 708;
Osceola Mill 6c Elevator Co. v. M. St. P. & S. S. M. R. Co., 1914, 14 R. C.
759; Kenfield-Lamoreaux Co. v. C. St. P. M. & 0. R. Co., 1914, 15 R. C. 294.
Failure to protect intermediate points in a joint rate, which was
subsequently extended to cover such points.
111. Wright Lbr. Co. v. C. M. & St. P. R. Co. et al., 1909, 4 R. C. 175.
Failure to protect an intermediate point in a through rate, which
was subsequently extended to cover such point.
112. Tinkham v. C. & N. W. R. Co. et al, 1909, 4 R. G. 329; Oshkosh
Fuel Co. V. C. M. Sc St. P. R. Co., 1910, 6 R. C. 199.
Failure to provide for the absorption of switching charges as pre-
viously in effect and subsequently made effective.
113. Paffv. C. <Sc N. W. R. Co., 1912, 9 R. C. 160; Morgan v. M. St.
P. & S. S. M. R. Co., 1912, 9 R. C. 165.
Improper classification.
114. Howey v. C. M. & St. P. R. Co., 1909, 3 R. C. 504; Jefferson
Brick & Tile Co. v. C. & N. W. R. Co., 1912, 8 R. C. 553.
Shipper's error in routing.
115. Wis. Coal Co. v. W. C. R. Co., 1909, 3 R. C. 339; Joannes Bros:
Co. v. C. M. & St. P. R. Co., 1909, 3 R. G. 422.
Shipper's error with respect to shipping directions.
116. Milwaukee Western Malt Co. v. C. M. <Sc St. P. R. Co. et al,
1910, 5 R. C. 437.
d. REFUND FROM DEMURRAGE CHARGE.
Accrued through negligence of carrier.
117. G. W. Jones Lbr. Co. v. C. M. & St. P. R. Co., 1911, 7 R. G. 388.
Based on unreasonable delay in providing certain track facilities.
118. Greiling Bros. Co. v. C. M. & St. P. R. Co., 1914, 14 R. G. 449.
Ordered on basis of free time allowance under statute.
119. Krull Commission Co. v. C. & N. W. R. Co., 1912, 9 R. G. 60.
Ordered on basis of switching rate established bj order of the
Commission.
120. Ruedebusch v. C. M. & Si P. R. Co., 1913, 12 R. G. 248; 1914,
14 R. G. 92.
c. REFUND OF DRAYAGE CHARGE.
Commission without jurisdiction.
121. Deeves Lbr. Co. v. C. <Sc N. W. R. Co., 1912,^8 R. G. 507.
Reparation. — Refunds 379
f. REFUND FROM EXCESS CHARGE ORDERED ON BASIS OF.
Actual weight of shipment.
122. Kraft, Radtke & Quilling Co. v. C. M. & St. P. R. Co. et al.,
1913, 13 R. G. 393.
Commodity rate in eflFect in the opposite direction and subse-
quently made effective.
123. Menasha Paper Co. v. m'. St. P. & S. S. M. R. Co., 1909, 4 R. C.
360; Listman Millg. Co. v. C. & N. W. R. Co., 1910, 6 R. G. 207; Menasha
Paper Co. v. C. M. <Sc St. P. R. Co. et al., 1911, 6 R. G. 586; Stowell Mfg. &
Fdry. Co. v. C. & N. W. R. Co., 1911, 8 R. G. 316; Marinette & Menominee
Box Co. V. C. M. Sc St. P. R. Co., 1912, 9 R. G. 37.
Difference between the rate charged and the rate found reason-
able.
124. Pennsylvania Coal & Supply Co. v. C. M. <Sc St. P. R. Co., 1914,
14 R. G. 746.
Distance rates previously established by otder of the Commission.
125. Rhinelander Paper Co. v. M. St. P. <Sc S. S. M. R. Co., 1913,
11 R. G. 393; Waukesha Lime <Sc Stone Co. v. C. Sc N. W. R. Co. et al, 1914,
14 R. G. 579; Waukesha Lime & Stone Co. v. M. St. P. Sc S. S. M. R. Co.
e/ al, 1914, 14 R. G. 718.
Joint commodity rates established by order of Commission.
126. Rhinelander Paper Co. v. M. St. P. Sc S. S. M. R. Co. et al, 1912,
9 R. G. 127.
Joint commodity rate reestablished by order of the Commission.
127. Rhinelander Paper Co. v. C. M. Sc St. P. R. Co. et al, 1911,
8 R. G. 58.
Joint rate established by order of the Commission.
128. Parfrey v. C. M. Sc St. P. R. Co. et al., 1910, 4 R. G. 450; Eckhart
jf. C. B. Sc Q. R. Co. et al, 1910, 4 R. G. 781; Mears-Slayton Lbr. Co. v.
Wis. Sc N. R. Co. et al, 1911, 8 R. G. 247; Mayer v. C. Sc N. W. R. Co.
et al, 1911, 8 R. G. 328; John Schroeder Lbr. Co. v. C. Sc N. W. R. Co.
et al, 1914, 14 R. G. 823; John Week Lbr. Co. v. C. M. Sc St. P. R. Co. et al,
1914, 15 R. G. 53.
f
Joint rate for shortest available route.
129'. Brown Bros. Lbr. Co. v. M. St. P. Sc S. S. M. R. Co. et al, 1910,
5 R. G. 647, 655.
Joint rate in effect on a competing line and subsequently made
effective.
130. Owen Sc Bro. Co. v. M. Si P. & S. S. M. R. Co., 1912, 9 R. G. 43.
Joint rate previously established by order of the Commission.
131.' Schwoegler Sc Kelly v. C. M. Sc St. P. R. Co. et al, 1910, 5 R. G.
635; Brittingham Sc Young Co. v. C. M. Sc St. P. R. Co. et al, 1911, 6 R. C.
528.
380 Reparation. — Refunds
f. REFUND FROM EXCESS CHARGE ORDERED ON BASIS
OF — Continued y '
Joint rate subsequently established by order of the Commission.
132. Schwoegler & Kelly v. C. M. Sc St. P. R. Co., 1910, 5 R. G. 287;
Parfrey v. C. M. <Sc St. P. R. Co. et al., 1910, 5 R. G. 551.
Joint rate subsequently made efifective.
133. Brittingham & Young Co. v. M. St. P. Sc S. S. M. R. Co. et al.,
1910, 4 R. C. 772; New Richmond Roller Mills Co. v. F. & N. E. R. Co.
et al., 1913, 11 R. C- 272; Creamery Package Mfg. Co. u. M. St. P. & S. S.
M. R. Co. et al., 1914, 14 R. C. 761.
Joint rate subsequently made effective in order to meet a through
rate on a competing line.
134. Somo River Lhr. Co. v. W. cfc N. R. Co. et al, 1910, 4 R. G. 485;
Badger Co. v. M. St. P. Sc S. S. M. R. Co. et al, 1910, 5 R. G. 729.
Lower commodity rate.
135. Ripon Veneer Sc Box Works v.. C. Sc N. W. R. Co., 1912, 9 R. G.
484.
Lower joint commodity rate.
136. Gablowsky et al. v. C. Sc N. W. R. Co. et al, 1912, 8 R. G. 544.
Lower rate previously in effect.
137. Hammond-Chandler Lbr. Co. v. M. St. P. Sc S. S. M. R. Co.,
1912, 10 R. G. 564.
Rate for shortest available route.
138. Engesether v. C. St. P. M. Sc 0. R. Co. et al, 1912, 8 R. G. 504;
Reiibrock Land & Lbr. Co. v. M. St P. Sc S. S. M. R. Co., 1913, 11 R. G.
447; Steven Sc Jarvis Lbr. Co. v. C. St P. M. Sc 0. R. Co., 1913, 12 R. G.
131; Hopwood v. C. St. P. M. Sc 0. R. Co. et al, 1913, 12 R. G. 217; Kraft,
Radtke Sc Quilling Co. v. C. M. Sc St. P. R. Co. et al, 1913, 13 R. G. 393;
Wis. Sugar Co. v. M. St. P. Sc S. S. M. R. Co. et al, 1915, 15 R. G. 650.
Rate in legal effect.
139. Milwaukee-Waukesha Brwg. Co. v. C. Sc N. W. R. Co., 1911,
6 R. G. 518; Mason & Martin v. C. Sc N. W. R. Co., 1912, 9 R. G. 74;
Merrill Woodenware Co. v.' M. St. P. Sc S. S. M. R. Co., 1914, 14 R. G. 805.
Reasonable minimum weight suj^sequently made effective.
140. Waukesha Lime Sc Stone Co. v. C. Sc N. W. R. Co. et al, 1913,
13 R. G. 368.
Reasonable rate erroneously omitted from tariff.
141. Selle Sc Co. v. C. St. P. M. Sc 0. R. Co. et al, 1914, 14 R. G. 225.
Reasonable rate established by order of the Commission.
142. Semrad Bros. Sc Pusch Brwg. Co. v. C. Sc N. W. R. Co. et al,
1913, 12 R. G. 236; Capital Fence Co. v. C. Sc N. W. R. Co. et al, 1913, 12
R. G. 756; Waukesha Lime Sc Stone Co. v. C. cfc N. W. R. Co. et a/., 1913,
13 R. G. 368; Wausau Paper Mills Co. v. C. M. Sc St. P. R. Co., 1914,
13 R. G. 690; Ruder Brwg. Co. v. C. M. Sc St. P. R. Co., 1914, 14 R. G: 508.
Reparation. — Refunds 381
Reasonable rate in effect on a competing line.
143. Cook & Brown Lime Co. v. W. C. R. Co., 1908, 2 R. C. 298;
Barnes v. C. M. & St. P. R. Co. et al., 1910, 4 R. C. 478; So. Wis. Sand <Sc
Gravel Co. v. C. M. Sc St. P. R. Co., 1913, 13 R. C. 380.
Reasonable rate in effect on a competing line and subsequently
made effective.
144. Pabst Brwg. Co. v. C. & N. W. R. Co., 1910, 4 R. G. 766; Cant-
well Paper Co. v. C. & N. W. R. Co., 1910, 5 R. C. 293; Emerald Cooperative
Creamery Co. v. C. St. P. M. <fc 0. R. Co., 1912, 8 R. C. 683; Rowland cfc
Son V. C. & N. W. R. Co., 1912, 9 R. C. 163; Waukesha Lime & Stone Co.
v. M. St. P. & S. S. M. R. Co., 1912, 9 R. C. 167.
Reasonable rate previously established by order of the Commis-
sion.
145. Wis. Box Co. v. C. M. & St. P. R. Co., 1909, 4 R. C. 271; Wis.
Box Co. v. C. & N. W. R. Co., 1909, 4 R. G. 323; Wis. Box Co. v. C. M. <Sc
St. P. R. Co., 1909, 4 R. G. 327; Waiisau Box Sc Lbr. Co. v. C. & N. W. R.
Co., 1909, 4 R. G. 335; Wausau Box Sc Lbr. Co, v. C. M. Sc St. P. R. Co.,
1909, 4 R. G. 337; Heinemann Lbr. Co. v. C. Sc N. W. R. Co., 1909, 4 R. G.
356; Wis. Box Co. v. C. Sc N. W. R. Co., 1910, 4 R. G. 405; Wausau Box Sc
Lbr. Co. V. C. M. Sc St. P. R. Co., 1910, 4 R. G. 457; Wausau Box Sc Lbr.
Co. V. C. Sc N. W. R. Co., 1910, 4 R. G. 459; Goodwillie Bros. v. C. Sc N. W.
R. Co., 1910, 4 R. G. 461; Goodwillie Bros. v. C. M. Sc St. P. R. Co., 1910,
4 R. G. 463; Wis. Box Co. v. C. M. Sc St. P. R. Co., 1910, 4 R. G. 768;
Duluth-Superior Millg. Co. v. N. P. R. Co., 1911, 7 R. G. 459; Higgins
Spring Sc Axle Co. v. C. M. Sc St. P. R. Co., 1911, 8 R. G. 36; Cumberland
Fruit Pkg. Co. v. C. St. P. M. Sc 0. R. Co., 1914, 15 R. G. 158; Nordberg
Mfg. Co. v. C. M. Sc St. P. R. Co., 1915, 15 R. G. 648.
Reasonable rate previously in effect and subsequently reestab-
lished.
146. Yawkey-Bissel Lbr. Co. v. C. Sc N. W. R. Co., 1910, 6 R. G. 209;
Oshkosh Fuel Co. v. C. Sc N. W. R. Co., 1910, 6 R. G. 222; Rust Owen Lbr.
Co. V. C. St. P. M. Sc 0. R. Co., 1911, 7 R. G. 12; A. H. Stange Co. v. C. M.
Sc St. P. R. Co., 1913, 11 R. G. 274; Cumberland Fruit Pkg. Co. v. C. St. P.
M. Sc 0. R. Co., 1914, 14 R. G. 287; Pierce v. M. St. P. Sc S. S. M. R. Co.
et al., 1914, 14 R. G. 754.
Reasonable rate subsequently made effective.
147. Oshkosh Logging Tool Co. v. C. & N. W. R. Co., 1907, 2 R. G.
116; Steven Sc Jarvis Lbr. Co. v. C. St. P. M. Sc 0. R. Co., 1907, 2 R. G. 131;
Menasha Wooden Ware Co. v. W. C. R. Co., 1908, 2 R. G. 589; Chippewa
Lbr. Sc Boom Co. v. W. C. R. Co., 1908, 2 R. G. 607; Menasha Paper Co. v.
C. M. Sc St. P. R. Co. et al., 1909, 3 R. G. 620; Uniform Stave Sc Package
Co. V. C. St. P. M. Sc 0. R. Co., 1909, 4 R. G. 193; Manson Sc Weinfeld v.
C. M. Sc St. P. R. Co., 1909, 4 R. G. 362; Kenfield Sc Lamoreaux v. C. St. P.
M. Sc O. R. Co., 1910, 4 R. G. 465; Wright Lbr. Co. v. C. M. Sc St. P. R. Co.,
1910; 4 R. G. 770; Osceola Millg. Sc Elevator Co. u. M. Si. P. Sc S. S. M. R.
Co., 1910, 5 R. G. 291; Ahnapee Veneer Sc Seating Co. v. M. St. P. Sc S. S.
M. R. Co., 1910, 5 R. G. 643; Phoenix Wall Paper Mfg. Co. v. M.St. P. &
5. S. M. R. Co., 1910, 6 R. G. 182; Block-PoUak Iron Co. v. C. M. Sc St. P.
382 Reparation. — Refunds
R. Co., 1910, 6 R. C. 205; Kaufmann & Co. v'.W.Sc N. R. Co., 1911, 6 R. G.
497; Morton Salt Co. v. M. St. P. & S. S. M. R. Co., 1911, 6 R. C. 499;
Block-Pollak Iron Co. v. C. M. <fc 5/. P. i?. Co., 1911, 6 R. C. 548; Oshkosh
Fuel Co. V. M. St. P. & S. S. M. R. Co., 1911, 6 R. G. 669; Edward Hines
Lbr. Co. V. C. St. P. M. & 0. R. Co., 1911, 7 R. G. 14; Standard Lime &
Stone Co. v. C. & N. W. R. Co., 1911, 7 R. C. 149; Brown Land & Lbr. Co.
V. M. St. P. & S. S. M. R. Co., 1911, 7 R. G. 581; Connor Land & Lbr. Co.,
V. C. & N. W. R. Co., 1911, 7 R. G. 774; Clark v. M. St. P. & S. S. M. R.
Co., 1911, 8 R. G. 38; Menasha Paper Co. v. M. St. P. & S. S. M. R. Co.,
1911, 8 R. G. 78; Connor Land & Lbr. Co. v. C. & N. W. R. Co., 1912, 8
R. G. 697; Menasha Paper Co. v. M. St. P. & S. S. M. R. Co., 1912, 9 R. G.
39; Goodman Lbr. Co. v. M. St. P. & S. S. M. R. Co., 1912, 9 R. G. 41;
Schneider v. S. M. & P. R. Co., 1912, 9 R. G. 64; Mitchell Lewis Motor Co.
V. C. M. & St. P. R. Co., 1913, 11 R. G. 709; Oilman Mfg. Co. v. S. M.
Sc P. Co. et al., 1913, 12 R. G. 134; Kenfield-Lamoreaux Lbr. Co. v. C. St. P.
M. <Sc 0. R. Co., 1913, 12 R. G. 192; Schroeder Lbr. Co. v. M. St. P. Sc S. S.
M. R. Co., 1913, 12 R. G. 701; Hale-Mylrea Lbr. Co. v. C. & N. W. R. Co.,
1913, 12 R. G. 709; International Harvester Corporation v. C. M. Sc St. P.
R. Co., 1914, 13 R. G. 640; White Rock Quarry Co. v. C. Sc N. W. R. Co.,
1914, 13 R. G. 669; Milwaukee Sand Stone Co. v. C. & N. W. R. Co., 1914,
13 R. G. Q71; Moritz v. C. M. & St. P. R. Co., 1914, 13 R. G. 684; Wausau
Box Sc Lbr. Co. v. C. & N. W. R. Co., 1914, 13 R. G. 698; Wausau Advance-
ment Assn. V. C. & N. W. R. Co., 1914, 13 R. G. 772; Owen & Bro. Co. v.
C. Sc N. W. R. Co., 1914, 14 R. G. 79; Big Four Canning Co. v. C. St. P.
M. & 0. R. Co., 1914, 14 R. G. 84; Peshtigo Lbr. Co. v. C. M. & St. P. R.
Co. et al., 1914, 14 R. G. 188; Carl Frontz v. Mineral Point Sc N. R. Co.,
1914, 14 R. G. 217; Ruder Brwg. Co. v. C. M. Sc St. P. R. Co., 1914, 14
R. G. 508; Selle Sc Co. v. M. St. P. Sc S. S. M. R. Co., 1914, 14 R. G. 544;
Northwestern Iron Co. v. C. M. Sc St. P. R. Co., 1914, 14 R. G. 577; Wau-
kesha Lime Sc Stone Co. v. C. Sc N. W. R. Co. et al, 1914, 14 R. G. 579;
Johnson Sc Hill Co. v. M. St. P. Sc S. S. M. R. Co., 1914, 14 R. G. 752;
Peshtigo Lbr. Co. v. C. M. Sc St. P. R. Co., 1914, 15 R. G. 43; International
Harvester Corp. v. C. M. Sc St. P. R. Co., 1914, 15 R. G. 164; Pierce v.
M. St. P. Sc S. S. M. R. Co., et al., 1914, 15 R. G. 473; Ellis Lbr. Co. v.
C. M. ScSt. P. R. Co., 1914, 15 R. G. 527.
f. REFUND ON EXCESS CHARGED ORDERED ON BASIS OF— Continued
m
Reasonable joint rate in eflfect on competing lines and subse-
quently made eflfective.
148. Barney v. G. B. Sc W. R. Co. et al., 1910, 4 R. G. 775.
Revised concentration rates.
149. Torrey Cedar Co. v. C. Sc N. W. R. Co., 1912, 10 R. G. 461.
Rule providing for absorption of switching charges as previously
in eflfect and subsequently made eflfective.
150. Blodgett Milling Co. v. C. Sc N. W. R. Co., 1912, 10 R. G. 377.
Switching rate substituted by order of the Commission for the
distance rate previously in eflfect.
151. Summit Stove Co. v. C. M. Sc St. P. R. Co., 1913, 12 R G. 186.
Retroactive Orders 383
g. REFUND FROM EXPRESS CHARGE.
Due to change in construction placed on classification without
due notice to shipper.
152. Gross v. U. S. Express Co., 1909, 3 R. G. 342.
Ordered on basis of the general special rate reestablished by order
of the Commission.
153. M. Carpenter Baking Co. ei at. v. Wells Fargo & Co. et al., 1911,
8 R. C. 1.
REPORT OF ACCIDENTS.
01)ligation of street railway companies, doing both urban and interurban
business, to report accidents to the Commission,, see Street Rail-
ways, 1.
RESERVES.
Depreciation reserve charge, see Depreciation, 13-25.
Reserve for injuries and damages, allowance for, see Injuries and Dam-
ages, 1.
RESHIPMENT.
As matter considered in determining reasonableness of railroad rates, see
Rates — Railroad, 195.
Conditions under which reshipment is allowed for small additional charge,
see Rates — Railroad, 26-40.
RESIDENCE RATES.
Business and residence rates for telephone utilities, see Rates — Tele-
phone, 3, 5-7.
RESTORATION OF HIGHWAY.
Re,storation and maintenance of highway, see Railroads, 45-51.
RETENTION AND DEVELOPMENT OF BUSINESS.
As element considered in making rates for electric utilities, see Rates —
Electric, 43-44.
for water utilities, see Rates — Water, 49-55.
RETROACTIVE ORDERS.
Railroad Commission without power to issue retroactive orders, see Rail-
road Commission, 123.
384 Return. — In General
RETURN.
Basis of reasonable return, value of property, see Valuation, 1-13.
I, IN GENERAL.
II. PROPERTY EMPLOYED IN COMMON CARRIERS.
III. PROPERTY EMPLOYED IN A PUBLIC OR QUASI-PUBLIC ENTER-
PRISE.
IV. PROPERTY EMPLOYED IN PUBLIC UTILITIES.
V. RATE OF RETURN ON INVESTMENT IN A PUBLIC OR QUASI-
PUBLIC ENTERPRISE.
VI. RATE OF RETURN ON INVESTMENTS IN A PUBLIC UTILITY
ENTERPRISE.
VII. RELATION OF NOMINAL RETURN TO CAPITALIZATION.
VIII. WHAT CONSTITUTES A REASONABLE RETURN. /
a. For public utilities. c. For street railways.
b. For railroads.
I. IN GENERAL.
Nature of.
1. The return is the excess of the gross earnings over the operating
expenses, the latter including all expenses for labor, fuel and other supplies,
salaries of officers, taxes, maintenance and depreciation of property and
interest. The measure of this excess, providing the accounts are a true
statement of the business, is the margin within which rate adjustments
are possible. City of Ripon v. Ripon Lt. & W. Co., 1910, 5 R. C. 1, 17.
II. PROPERTY EMPLOYED IN COMMON CARRIERS.
Owner entitled to reasonable return.
2. Under the law the carriers are entitled to a reasonable compensa-
tion for the services they render. That is, under ordinary circumstances
they are entitled to rates that will yield a fair return upon a fair valuation
of the property and facilities employed. Noble et al. v. C. St. P. M. &
0. R. Co., 1907, 1 R. C. 767, 775.
Reasonable return to owner necessary.
3. Ordinarily neither a legislature nor a commission created by it
can fix rates so low as to deprive the carrier of the right to earn its operating
expenses and a fair return on the reasonable value of its investment,, as
such action would be violative of the XIV. amendment to the Constitution
of the United States, and the validity of legislative-made rates, and of
those made by a Commission duly authorized to make them, stand on
the same footing before the courts. Buell v. C. M. & St. P. R. Co.,
1907, ). R. C. 324, 337-346.
III. PROPERTY EMPLOYED IN A PUBLIC OR QUASI-PUBLIC
ENTERPRISE.
Owner entitled to reasonable return.
4. It is a principle well established and invariably supported by the
sound reason of the law, that a person or corporation employing property
Return. — Rate of, on investm. in public, etc., enterprise 385
in a public or quasi public enterprise, such as that of a telephone company,
is entitled to earn a reasonable return upon the value of such property.
The telephone subscriber has placed at his use the property of the telephone
company, and it is no more than right that he should pay a fair amount
for such use, just as he would expect to pay a fair amount for the use of
money which went into the property if he were to borrow the money
instead of the use of the property. In re Oregon Tel. Co., 1909, 3 R. G.
534, 546-547.
5. The law provides in substance that under normal conditions
the carriers are entitled to such compensation for their services that
their receipts from this source as a whole will cover the necessary operating
expenses, including reasonable returns upon their investment. Ringle
et al. V. C. M. & St. P. R. Co. et ai, 1911, 7 R. C. 170, 180.
IV. PROPERTY EMPLOYED ^N PUBLIC UTILITIES.
Owner entitled to reasonable return.
6. When private capital is invested in public utilities, there is at
least a tacit understanding to the, effect that the investors will receive
a reasonable return upon their capital as soon as conditions warrant it.
That this is the case is self-evident, whether expressed or not, and regard-
less of such errors of judgment as sometimes creep into undertakings of
this nature. It is the duty of the investors to furnish a reasonably
efficient plant and management and a reasonably adequate service.
When these obligations are fulfilled, they are ordinarily entitled to a
reasonable return upon their investment and services. Hill et al. v.
Antigo W. Co., 1909, 3 R. C. 623, 711; 7/7 re Appl. North Milwaukee Lt.
<Sc P. Co., 1909, 4 R. G. 89, 97; Davis et al. v. Wis. Tel Co., 1909, 4 R. G.
370, 375.
Reasonable return to owner necessary.
7. It devolves upon the Commission to regard the demand for a
reasonable return upon actual investment and for services rendered on
the part of the utility, or fundamental in establishing and maintaining
adequate service for the community — on the assumption, always, that
ordinary intelligence and honesty have been shown in establishing the
utility. More than the welfare of any given utility or community under
consideration is involved in this. If the principle were unwisely dis-
regarded in any one case, it would be an effectual bar to the securing of
funds to develop new utilities or improve existing ones throughout the
entire state. In re Appl. Darlington El. Lt. Sc W. P. Co., 1913, 13 R. G.
344, 346.
V. RATE OF RETURN ON INVESTMENTS IN A PUBLIC OR
QUASI-PUBLIC ENTERPRISE.
Desirability of "margin" between gross revenues and tbe aggre-
gate of operating expenses and fixed charges.
8. In ordinary cases to waste the margin between the amount
sufficient to assure a fair return on the value of the property, plus the
13
386 Return.— Rate of, on investm. in public, etc, enterprise
amount of the fixed charges and operating expenses and the gross receipts,
is to waste the fund in which the whole pubUc is interested. This should
never be done for the benefit of the few as against the interests of the
many. It is also to be considered that this margin ought not ordinarily
to be exhausted or swept away by orders or requirements of the Railroad
Commission as fast as accumulated, because human nature or railroad
nature is such that no one will long economize on operating or other ex-
penses if his economy only furnishes a larger basis for further exactions.
(Minneapolis, St. P. & S. S. M. R. Co. v. Railroad Commission of Wis-
consin, 1908, 136 Wis. 146, 167.) Payne et al v. Wis. Tel. Co., 1909,
4 R. C. 1, 62-63; State Journal Prtg. Co. et al. v. Madison Gas & EI. Co.,
1910, 4 R.lC. 501, 625; Hawes v. C. M. & St. P. R. Co., 1911, 6 R. C.
565, 569.
VI. RATE OF RETURN ON INVESTMENTS IN A PUBLIC
UTILITY ENTERPRISE.
Dependent upon particular circumstances.
9. The rate of return which must or should be allowed on whatever
investment may be determined to exist, obviously depends both upon the
class of the utility enterprise — whether gas, electric, water, telephone, etc.
— and the character of the individual plant and the circumstances under
which it is operated within the class. Payne et al. v. Wis. Tel. Co., 1909,
4 R. C, 1, 63.
Desirability of "margin" between gross revenues and the aggre-
gate of operating expenses . and fixed charges — Telephone
utilities.
10. Even though the patronage and revenues of a telephone company
remain stable and business increases in times of depression, the telephone
business, in the present state of the art, nevertheless remains a business
subject to great risks and uncertainties. There can bie no question
regarding the necessity of maintaining a margin between the gross revenues
and the aggregate of operating expenses and fixed charges wherever
possible in order that contingencies may be properly met in the interests
of good service. Payne et al. v. Wis. Tel. Co., 1909, 4 R. C. 1, 67.
Investment in advance of needs of community.
11. It would seem that when a utility undertakes to build considerably
in advance of the needs of the community, the utility can hardly expect
a large return upon this investment immediately. On the ^ther hand,
if consumers can be induced to pay a profit on this investment, it would
appear advantageous for the utility to invest in equipment which will
meet demands far into the future. City of Beloit v. Beloit W. G. & El.
Co., 1911, 7 R. C. 187, 347.
Rate of return under abnormal conditions.
12. The fact that consumers will not pay a rate which will enable
the utility to earn what would ordinarily constitute a reasonable rate of
return upon its property, may not affect the justice of such a charge or
Return. — What constitutes a reasonable return 387
the legal right of the utility to charge such rates, but the fact that the
utility has a legal right to a reasonable return upon its property will not
prove of much value if it loses a large part of its business because of the
presence of competition or the inability of consumers to pay enough to
ensure the company such a return. In re Appl. Oconto City W. Supply
Co., 1911, 7 R. C. 497, 556-557.
Stability of, under Public Utilities Law.
13. There is every reason to believe, what the testimony in .this case
suggests, that the operation of the Public Utilities Law will, eventually,
result in greater stability in the investment in public utility enterprises,
and that this will be followed by a relatively lower rate of interest, may
reasonably be expected from the nature of the competitive forces operating
upon capital. However, until experience has actually demonstrated it,
at least on a limited scale, no action of far reaching consequences can be
prudently and justly based upon it. Payne et al. v. Wis. Tel. Co., 1909,
4 R. C. 1, 63-64.
VII. RELATION OF NOMINAL RETURN TO CAPITALIZATION.
Addition of intangible value to capitalization.
14. Obviously the nominal rate of return will decrease as the amount
of "intangibles" added to the capital is increased and if enough is added,
net returns will apparently disappear entirely and nominal deficits take
the place of existing rates of profit. Payne et al. v. Wis. Tel. Co., 1909,
4 R. C. 1, 65.
«
VIII. WHAT CONSTITUTES A REASONABLE RETURN.
a. FOR PUBLIC UTILITIES.
Influence of operating conditions.
15. The amount which constitutes a reasonable return upon the
investment may also vary with both local and general conditions. In a
general way the reasonable return may be said to be that rate of return at
which capital and business ability can be had for development. Theoreti-
cally it cannot be lower than this, for in that case no capital would enter the
field. To determine what is reasonable in any given case, is a matter of
investigation and judgment. In re Menominee & Marinette Lt. & Tr.
Co., 1909, 3 R. C. 778, 793; In re Appl. Red Cedar Valley El. Co., 1911,
6 R. C. 717, 734.
16. There may be utilities which are operating under such conditions
that no rates that can be collected from the consumers would be sufficient
to meet the above named charges. In fact, such utilities are met with
more frequently than might be expected. This unfortunate situation
may be due to the lack of a sufficient number of customers, to mistakes in
construction and excessive cost of the same, and to many other causes.
Such utilities, in order to be paying concerns, would require higher rates
for their services than their customers are willing to pay rather than
forego these services, and the collection of such rates is, of course, out of
388 Return. — What constitutes a reasonable return
the question. Utilities of which this is true, cannot be subject to any
general rules. They can be dealt with only in the light of the conditions
which surround them. State Journal Prtg. Co. et al. v. Madison Gas cfc
EL Co., 1910, 4 R. C. 501, 625, 626.
a. FOR PUBLIC UTILITIES.— Continued
Legislative and judicial determination.
17. The statutes provide that the rates of return upon the investment
must be reasonable, but do not specifically state what the reasonable rate
should be. They further provide that it is the duty of this Commission
to enforce these statutes, or to determine the reasonable rate. The deci-
sions of the court are confined to the determination as to whether the
rates thus found by this Commission are reasonable or whether they
violate constitutional rights. While neither the statutes nor the decisions
are thus furnishing specific directions for the guidance of the Commission
in carrying out its duties, they contain certain rules which, in a general
way, limit the range within which the reasonable rate should be found.
State Journal Prtg. Co. et al. v. Madison Gas <Sc El. Co., 1910, 4 R. C.
501, 624-625.
Relation of return to capitalization.
18. Excessive capitalization can not justify higher than reasonable
returns for public utilities. The fact that excessive amounts of securities
may have been issued, and the further fact that the rates may have been
high enough to yield interest, and dividends on the same, would not
justify the continuance of these rates if they had been found to be
unreasonable in other respects. To hold otherwise would seem to be
contrary to public policy. Hill et al. v. Antigo Water Co., 1909, 3 R. C.
623, 726-727.
Relation of return to public utilities and to private enterprises.
19. In determining the force of the arguments as to the low rates of
interest obtained by investors in private business enterprises, the matter
must be viewed from the other side. The question would then be —
should there still be a close relation between the rate of return to the
water company and that to other private investors if the latter were
obtaining several times the rate now received, say 12 to 15 per cent or
more. It is very doubtful that any such rule would be admitted to work
both ways. In re Invest. Ashland Water Co., 1914, 14 R. C. 721, 726.
Return during experimental period.
20. To permit relatively high rates during the experimental period
of public utilities is often both necessary and in line with good policy
in other respects. Without it the necessary capital may not be forth-
coming at all. In the long run the interest of a community or state is
usually best subserved by granting such terms to the investors that will
assure a free and unrestricted flow into any undertaking or industry.
Nor is the state estopped from reducing the rates or from changing the
, terms to a- reasonable basis whenever other conditions warrant such action.
Hill et al. v. Antigo Water Co., 1909, 3 R. C. 623, 726.
Return. — What constitutes a reasonable return 389
Return for growing utilities.
21. For growing utilities where rate adjustments can not, in the
very nature of things, be of very frequent occurrence and for which,
owing to the law of increasing returns, the net earnings both actually
and relatively are gradually increasing, fairness often demands that the
returns allowed for the first year or at the time the rates are adjusted
should be 'below rather than above the normal figures. In re Service of
T. M. E. R. Sc L. Co. of Milwaukee, 1913, 13 R. C. 178, 240.
Returns for interest.
22. The rate of interest that should be allowed on the investment
in public utility plants is a matter that has not been definitely fixed. By
many authorities it is placed at from 6 to 8 per cent, and by others, again
as high as 10 to 15 per cent on the cost of the plant. Those who invest
their money in undertakings of this character are undoubtedly entitled
to interest at the current rates, and possibly something besides, to cover
risks and contingencies. This seems to be the position of the courts
and it is perhaps necessary in practice. Unless this is allowed, investors
would not be likely to put their money into such plants. In re Appl.
Merrill Railway & Ltg. Co., 1907, 2 R. C. 148, 158; In re Appl. Chippewa
Valley Ry. Lt. Sc P. Co., 1908, 2 R. G. 311, 321; Dodgeville v. Dodgeville
E. L. Sc P. Co., 1908, 2 R. G. 392, 407.
23. Interest is justifiable because of the importance of capital in
production, and necessary because without it capital cannot be had for
industrial and commercial purposes. The rate of interest, as determined
by economic forces over which the individual borrowers have little or
no control, and the effect of these forces, are often best measured by the
prevailing rate in the various undertakings where money is obtained on
the best terms that can be had. These terms, in such cases, usually
take into account the risks involved, the trouble of looking after the
loans, the readiness by which the loans can be converted into cash or
withdrawn, and other factors that affect the rates of interest. State
Journal Prtg. Co. et al. v. Madison Gas Sc El. Co., 1910, 4 R. G. 501, 634.
24. It is almost common-place to state, that capital is subject to the
accepted laws of competition, and that the gross rate of return which it
can command depends upon competitive forces. The competition of
capital among different industries and localities in the same country,
as well as the competition of capital among foreign countries, is well
understood. These national and international competitive forces control
the rate of interest everywhere, including Wisconsin. What the par-
ticular rate of interest is or will be, is purely a matter of experience.
The money market reflects and determines it. There ^re great demands
for investment funds in the Orient, Africa, South America, in the islands
of the Pacific Ocean, in Alaska, in the West Indies and other places,
not to speak of demands at home. Wisconsin cannot segregate itself
and stand in isolation as if exempt from these forces. It is fully and com-
pletely subject to them. One of these forces which is active in Wisconsin,
but not in many other localities, is the Public Utilities Law. Payne
et al. V. Wis. Tel. Co., 1909, 4 R. G. 1, 63.
390 Return. — What constitutes a reasonable return
a. FOR PUBLIC UTILITIES. — Continued
Returns for interest.
25. Older and better established utilities can secure money for
extensions at lower rates than new utilities. This applies also in renewing
their bond issues and other loans. In many cases they are even able to
refund outstanding bond issues at much more favorable rates of interest
than the rates paid in the past. In view of this it is clear that there should
also be a gradual decline in the rates of interest of such plants. This is
also an important fact, for it is undoubtedly the case that the rate of
interest actually paid is one of the elements that should be taken into
account in considering all interest allowances on the investment. Hill
et al. V. Antigo Water Co., 1909, 3 R. C. 623, 762.
26. The interest proper should include only the amount that is paid for
the use of the capital employed. Hill et al. v. Antigo W. Co., 1909, 3 R. C.
623, 764; City of Milwaukee v. T. M. E. R. & L. Co., 1912, 10 R. G. 1, 240.
27. The determination of what is a proper rate of return upon the
reasonable value of the property is dependent largely upon local conditions
which surround the plant and may be expected to vary with each particular
case. Payne v. Wis. Tel Co. et al., 1909, 4 R. C. 1, 63; In re Appl. North
Milwaukee Lt. & P. Co., 1909, 4 R. C. 89, 97; State Journal Prtg. Co. v.
Madison G. & El. Co., 1910, 4 R. C. 501, 626; City of Milwaukee v. T. M.
E. R. & L. Co., 1912, 10 R. G. 1, 240.
28. The rate of interest upon the investment that should be allowed
for public utilities is a question that largely depends upon the conditions
by which each plant is surrounded. Undertakings of this character are
not subject to the ordinary competitive conditions and this tends to
materially reduce the risks of the business. In view of these facts it
would seem that the utilities of the kind involved here are not entitled
to as high rates of interest as ordinary. industrial and commercial enter-
prises that are operating under competitive conditions. Under the law,
however, public utilities are entitled to reasonable returns upon a fair
valuation of their plants, provided such returns may be had under rates
for the services rendered, that are reasonable in other respects. In re
Appl. North Milwaukee Lt. & P. Co., 1909, 4 R. G. 89, 97.
29. Interest is dependent upon the location and nature of the under-
taking, the security, the degree of convertibility, the amount of risk,
skill and supervision necessary to place the loan, and other factors. In
the public utility business it is dependent also upon the competition
for available investment resources by other types of industry. Neces-
sarily the interest rate is less in a well established, well managed under-
taking than when the business is new and just being placed upon a paying
basis. Hill et al. v. Antigo W. Co., 1909, 3 R. G. 623, 762; In re Menominee
& Marinette Lt. & Tr. Co., 1909, 3 R. G. 778, 793; State Journal Prtg. Co.
V. Madison G. Sz El. Co., 1910, 4 R. G. 501, 629; In re Fond du Lac W. Co.,
1910, 5 R. G. 482, 506; City of Milwaukee v. T. M. E. R. & L. Co., 1912,
10 R. G. 1, 240-241.
30. The rate of interest at which capital can be had is influenced by
the supply and demand for loanable funds; by the risks involved; by the
care and work required in placing the loans and in looking after them;
by whether the loans are readily transferred or converted into cash;
Return. — What constitutes a reasonable return 391
and by other local and general conditions. Superior Comml. Club el al.
D. Superior W. Lt. & P. Co., 1912, 10 R. C. 704, 758.
31. As the rate of interest or profits is largely dependent upon risks,
it would seem to follow that the rate of interest should be lower in monop-
olistic than in competitive enterprises. This position is also strengthened
when, as for public utilities, reasonable returns are recognized by law.
In re Menominee & Marinetle Lt & Tr. Co., 1909, 3 R. C. 778, 819.
32. As to the rate of interest to be allowed, there is reason for making
a distinction between privately and publicly owned utilities. If the
same rate of return were to be allowed, other things being equal, the
consumer would hardly have any advantage in taking service from a
municipal plant. But a difTerence in the rate of interest will give him all
advantage, outside of other considerations. In the present case the city
pays from 3J/^ to 4 per cent interest on the bonds issued to cover the
water plant. A private plant would demand at least 6 per cent or more.
If the city is permitted a return of 4 per cent on the investment, the saving
in interest over a privately owned plant on a 6 per cent basis amounts to a
considerable sum. Dick et al. v. Madison Water Comm., 1910, 5 R. G.
731, 745.
Return for interest and profits.
33. As to what constitutes a reasonable rate of interest and profit
upon the amount invested in public utilities must be determined by
investigation. Generally speaking, it can be said that such rates depend
upon the cost of obtaining the capital and the business skill that are
required. On the one hand, they must be high enough to secure the
necessary capital and business ability; on the other hand, they should
not be so high as to be unreasonable to the consumers. Hill et al. v.
Ant'igo Water Co., 1909, 3 R. G. 623, 751; In re Menominee & Marinette
Lt. & Tr. Co., 1909, 3 R. G. 778, 793-794; State Journal Prig. Co. et al. v.
Madison Gas & El. Co., 1910, 4 R. G. 501, 626; In re Fond du Lac Water
Co., 1910, 5 R. G. 482, 506; City of Sheboygan v. Sheboygan Ry. & El. Co.,
1911, 6 R. G. 353, 366; City of Milwaukee v. T. M. E. R. & L. Co., 1912,
10 R. G. 1, 240; Superior Comml. Club et al. v. Superior W. Lt. & P. Co.,
1912, 10 R. G. 704, 758; In re Proposed Extension Ettrick Tel. Co., 1913,
12 R. G. 744, 747: In re Service of T. M. E. R. Sc L. Co. in Milwaukee,
1913, 13 R. G. 178, 215.
34. "While public utilities are subject to many conditions that tend
to increase the risks under which their business is carried on, they are
also afforded a great deal of protection that is of considerable value to the
investors. This protection has its source partly in legal provisions, and
partly in the fact that, after all, such utilities are natural monopolies
and are engaged in furnishing services that have practically become
necessities and for which there appear to be no effective substitutes.
While the investors in gas and electric light plants are exposed to certain
hazards or risks, these risks, while greater than the risks which obtain
for money placed, say, in trust companies and good mortgages, are not,
on the whole, as great as those which obtain in ordinary competitive
enterprises. State Journal Prtg. Co. et al. v. Madison Gas & El. Co.,
1910, 4 R. G. 501, 632.
392 Return. — What constitutes a reasonable return
a. FOR PUBLIC UTILI\TIES. — Continued
Return for profits — In general.
35. Profits are now acknowledged to be a peculiar form of income
which, while they differ from rent, wages and interest, occupy about the
same rank when it comes to their fundamental importance. Profits
are a surplus over and above the expenses of production. They are
usually identified as the balance left over after the claims of all other factors
have been satisfied, and as the income that goes to those who carry on
the business. Profits, being a surplus, are not determined by any one set
of principles. They are the result of the many forces that affect the prices
at which the products sell as well as the cost at which they are produced.
In a general way, however, it can perhaps be said that profits are made
up of the wages of managements, of speculative gains from the risks
which have to be assumed, and of gains, such as depend on chance rather
than foresight, and of gains due to power of bargainitig and other condi-
tions of this nature, including monopoly powers. State Journal Prtg.
Co. et al. V. Madison Gas & El. Co., 1910, 4 R. C. 501, 636-637; In re Fond
du Lac Water Co., 1910, 5 R. C. 482, 506; In re Manitowoc W. Wks. Co.,
1911, 7 R. C. 71, 100; City of Milwaukee v. T. M. E. R. Sc L. Co., 1912,
10 R. C. 1, 240; Meyer et al. v. Sheboygan G. Lt. Co., 1913, 11 R. C. 309,
315.
36. The rate of profits depends upon the supply of business capacity
and initiative, the risks involved, the nature of the undertakings, and
many other conditions. These rates, therefore, vary as between the
different industries and the different classes of service. They even vary
as between the various public utilities in the same place, as well as often
also between like utilities in different localities. Superior Comml. Club
et al. V. Superior W. Lt. & P. Co., 1912, 10 R. C. 704, 758.
37. Generally speaking, there is more risk in new than in older
utilities, and hence it also follows that higher profits should be allowed
for the former. This is in accordance with past practice and sound
economic principles. As the utilities become somewhat older in the
places they serve and attain to a better development of their business,
the risks involved are decreasing and with such decreases in the risks
it is only fair that there should be decreases in their profits. Hill et al. v.
Antigo Water Co., 1909, 3 R. C. 623, 762.
Gains due to chance.
38. Profits often also contain other elements of gain, such, for
instance, as are derived from unforeseen and fortuitous circumstances.
These gains would rather seem to be the result of chance. They
depend upon sudden changes in the demand, temporary shortage
of goods on the part of competitors, and other conditions of this nature,
rather than on foresight and good business judgment. Such gains,
nevertheless are pften of considerable importance and may be of material
aid in the Success of an enterprise. State Journal Prtg. Co. et al. v. Madison
Gas & El. Co., 1910, 4 R. C. 501, 648.
Gains of bargaining.
39. Profits often contain an element of gain derived from superior
power of bargaining. The gains of bargainings are also often of the
Return. — What constitutes a reasonable return 393
greatest importance. They consist of the abihty to buy at the lowest
and sell at the highest possible prices. In actual practice it often happens
that the shrewder one of the bargaining parties can sell for higher than
his lowest price and buy for lower prices than those he might have been
ready to pay, and that his advantages in these respects are simply due to
the fact that he has the ability to drive the closest bargains. These
powers may be due to greater natural capacity, to better and more com-
plete information upon the matters involved, and to several other causes.
In any event, it is a valuable power to possess as it frequently leads
to considerable increases in the profits of a business. State Journal
Prtg. Co. et al. v. Madison Gas & El. Co., 1910, 4 R. G. 501, 648.
Spe<Hilative gains from. risk assumed.
40. There are, in public utilities as well as in other industries, other
than competitive risks. In the construction and operation of such
plants many accidents may be met with and many mistakes may occur.
While some of these might have been foreseen and prevented, others may
be beyond human intelligence and grasp. Many examples of this might
be mentioned. Such plants may also be injured by the diversion of the
growth of the city in a different direction from that expected when the
plants were built; by the failure of the city to grow as rapidly as expected
or as rapidly as the plant had made preparations for; by the failure of the
city to grow at all, as well as by decreases in its population and industries;
by actions of the local and other authorities by which unprofitable
extension may be required, the rates reduced, or other burdens imposed,
as public ^utilities usually have to furnish adequate service whether it
is paying or not. In the case of such losses the owners or employers are
the first to suffer, as their share of the proceeds is not fixed but has to
take what is left after the other claims have been met. Wages, salaries,
supplies, taxes, interest on the bonds or notes, etc., must be paid by the
employers or the business will stop or go into receivership. If the
earnings are only large enough to cover these outlays, the employer will
have to go without his pay. There is no escape from this. In view of
these and other facts, it is clear that public utilties are not entirely
exempted from risks and that, therefore, there is a speculative feature
about them for which their owners are entitled to something in the way
of speculative gains. State Journal Prtg. Co. et al. v. Madison Gas Sc El.
Co., 1910, 4 R. G. 501, 644-645.
Competitive risks.
41. The greatest risks usually prevail in competitive undertakings.
In industries where certain monopoly conditions prevail, such as public
utilities, competitive risks are, of course, of much smaller importance.
State Journal Prtg. Co. et al. v. Madison Gas Sc El. Co., 1910, 4 R. G. 501,
643-644.
42. In monopolistic industries the average profits are often greater
than in competitive ones. That this should be the case is only natural,
for the former control the supply of their products and are, therefore,
quite generally in position to charge such prices for the same as will yield
the greatest net returns. In fact, the chief peculiarity of monopoly
394 Return. — What constitutes a reasonable return.
prices is found in the control which monopoHes have over the supply.
In other words, the former are governed through the control of the latter.
In competitive industries the magnitude of the profits depends upon the
managing ability, foresight, bargaining, skill and good fortune of the
employers. In monopolistic industries profits rest on these qualities as
well as on an additional element which is of the greatest importance,
namely, the ability of the monopolist to control the supply, which usually
results in fixing prices at the point where, as said, they will yield the
highest net profits; competitive profits tend towards the minimum;
monopoly profits tend towards the maximum. The latter profits are
also apt to have greater stability than the former. This applies, in
varying degrees, to all kinds of monopoly advantages, or to public utility
corporations as well, to good will, patent rights and other privileges of
this character. State Journal Prtg. Co. et at. v. Madison Gas <Sc EL Co.,
1910,4R.G. 501,645-646.
a. FOR PUBLIC UTILITIES. — Continued
Returft for profits — Wages of management.
43. The wages of management and superintendence are often included
in the operating expenses. This is especially true of public utilities and
of most other corporations. When the wages so paid include full com-
pensation for such technical skill and ability of management, including
the work of planning the operations and their ultimate direction as may
be required, and when this compensation is included in the operating
expenses, then it is also clear that it should not also be included elsewhere
among the outlays or under any other head. State Journal Prtg. Co. et at.
V. Madison Gas Sc El. Co., 1910, 4 R. C. 501, 637-638.
44. As the cost of the management bears a somewhat close relation
to the work that is required of it, it also follows that this cost is com-
paratively low where by far the larger proportion of the investment
consists of a durable and easily managed plant which requires but little
attention after it has been constructed and put in operation. Public
utilities come in this class. In these the cost of the management con-
stitutes often only a comparatively small part of the total cost of the
investment, although this is not always the relation that exists between
this cost and the value of the products of such utilities. State Journal
Prtg. Co. et at. v. Madison Gas <Sc El. Co., 1910, 4 R. G. 501, 638; In re
Fond du Lac Water Co., 1910, 5 R. C. 482, 507; In re Jt. Appl. Waupaca
Et. Lt. Sz R. Co. and Waupaca, 1912, 8 R. C. 586, 613.
45. Although it makes no difference to the consumer whether a
reduction is made in salaries or whether the reduction be in the amount
to be returned in the form of dividends, consumers have a right to demand
that the combination of salaries and interest shall not be unreasonable.
Cz7z/ ofJanesville v.Janesville W. Co., 1911, 7 R. C. 628, 648.
46. In determining the retufn to the management some allowance
should be made in some manner for special efficiency. To deny this is to
take away one of the greatest incentives to economy. City of Milwaukee
V. T. M. E. R. & L. Co., 1912, 10 R. C. 1, 242.
Return. — What constitutes a reasonable return 395
b. FOR RAILROADS.
In general.
'47. Under normal conditions the owners of a railroad are entitled
to a fair return upon a fair valuation of their property. This statement
raises two questions: first, what is a fair rate of interest in such cases;
and second, what constitutes a fair valuation of the property involved?
Both of these questions are so closely related to other questions and involve
so many problems about which there is more or less dispute, that any
full or adequate discussion of each cannot be entered upon here. At the
same time it is necessary to call attention to a few facts which are more
intimately connected with these questions. It has been quite generally
held that a fair rate of interest is a rate which, other things being equal,
corresponds to the current market rates on money. This is a position
with which it is not easy to take issue, for it is quite clear that whatever
rate money brings in the market is a safe index to what it is generally
worth for investment purposes. It may also be said, and with a great
deal of force, that a fair rate of interest for any particular road is the rate
of income which its securities bring on their market value. The market
rate includes the ordinary risks, as it is usually considerably higher than
the rate which is obtained on government and other securities where
substantially no risks at all are involved. As the bonds draw interest
at a trifle less than 5 per cent, and represent about one-half of the cost
of reconstruction new, it follows that on the various methods of computing
interest the owners would receive only about 5 3^ per cent on their invest-
ment. This is one-half of one per cent less than the legal rate of interest
in this state. It is also less than what is considered a fair profit in other
lines of business. For these and other reasons it would seem fair that
the company should be permitted to earn at least 6 per cent on the entire
cost of reproduction, new. This is not an abnormal rate. Buell v.
C. M. <Sc St. P. R. Co., 1907, 1 R. C. 324, 477-483.
48. Upon what valuation is the road entitled to earn a fair income
and what rate of interest upon such valuation will yield such income?
These questions were quite fully discussed in the opinion in the case of
Buell V. C. M. Sc St. P. R. Co., 1 R. C. 324, and similar inquiries
into the facts and principles involved in this case have led to the conclusion
that an earning of 6 per cent on an amount that substantially agrees
with the cost of reproduction new, would probably not be an unreasonably
low income upon the investment. In re Passenger Rates M. St. P. <Sc
S. S. M. R. Co., 1907, 1 R. C. 540, 582.
49. On the entire traffic the carriers are entitled to earnings that are
sufficient to meet the cost of operation, repairs and depreciation of the
property actually used or useful in transportation, and that, besides, will
yield a fair interest upon a fair valuation of this property. In re Rates
on Pulp Wood, 1908, 2 R. C. 168, 224.
50. Generally speaking, no rate should be lower than sufficient to
cover operating expenses and to contribute at least a small amount
towards the interest upon the investment. There are perhaps conditions
under which exceptions to this may be warranted, but they should not
be numerous or general. No rates should be so high as to interfere with
396 Return. — What constitutes a reasonable return
the free and unhampered movement of the goods, or yield unreasonably
high profits when the situation as a whole is considered. Between these
two extremes, or between the upper and lower level, there may be almost
all sorts of rates. In re Rates on Milk & Cream, 1908, 2 R. G. 450, 465.
c. FOR STREET RAILWAYS.
In general.
51. Under normal conditions a rate of return of 7.5 per cent for
interest and profit on such a valuation as that allowed in the Fare Case
(City of Milwaukee v. T. M. E. R. & L. Co., 1912, 10 R. C. 1),
and under such other conditions as obtained in that case, is ordinarily
sufficient to bring the necessary capital into service. In re Service of
T. M. E. R. & L. Co. in Milwaukee, 1913, 13 R. G. 178, 231.
RIGHT OF WAY.
For electric utilities, see Electric Utilities, 56.
For railroads, see Railroads, 103-105.
For telephone utilities, see Telephone Utilities, 62.
Value claimed for easements over private right of way which subse-
quently became public streets, see Valuation, 97.
RISK.
As element in rate of interest, see Return, 22-32.
in rate of profits, see Return, 40-42.
considered in making railroad rates, see Rates — Railroad, 153.
As matter considered in determining reasonableness of rates for express
companies, see Rates — Express, 9.
RIVER IMPROVEMENTS.
Jurisdiction of Gommission over river improvements, see Railroad
GOMMISSION, 97.
ROCK.
See Stone.
ROLLING STOCK.
Apportionment of maintenance of rolling stock expenses in the determina-
tion of unit costs for interurbans, see Accounting, 80.
for street railways, see Accounting, 142.
ROOM BASIS.
Flat rates for water service based on number of rooms, see Rates —
Water, 21-22.
Routing 397
ROPE.
Mixture privilege with agricultural implements, see Rates — Railroad,
200.
ROUTES.
Alteration of route of railroad, see Railroad Commission, 37.
Joint or through rates should be based on shortest available route.
1. It hardly seems reasonable to base joint rates on any other than
the shortest available route. This position is supported by experience,
for where more than one route is open the instances where the rates are
based on the longest would seem to be the exceptions rather than the rule.
To base the rates on the shorter distance is also in line with common
fairness and public interest. Any other course would, in most cases,
almost seem absurd. Brown Bros. Lbr. Co. u. M. St. P. & S. S. M. R.
Co. et al., 1910, 5 R. C. 647, 652.
2. Where no specific directions w^ere given the shipper was entitled
to a routing by which he would receive the lowest through rate. Hodges
V. W. C. R. Co., 1906, 1 R. C. 300; Engesether u. C. St. P. M. & O. R. Co.
et at., 1912, 8 R. C. 504, 505-506.
Right of shipper to dictate routing.
3. The shipper has the right to dictate to the carrier the route over
which the shipment is to move. Hodges v. W. C. R. Co., 1906, 1 R. C. 300;
Engesether v. C. St. P. M. & 0. R. Co. et at., 1912, 8 R. C. 504; Reitbrock
Land & Lbr. Co. v. M. St. P. & S. S. M. R. Co., 1913, 11 R. C. 447, 448.
ROUTE SIGNS.
Route signs to be displayed on street railway cars to improve service, see
Street Railways, 45.
ROUTING.
Change in original termini or route of a railroad for a greater distance
than one mile, requires the approval of the Railroad Commission,
see Railroad Commission, 37.
Error in routing, carrier acting in good faith not to be held responsible
for errors of shipper in routing, see Reparation, 19.
Express shipments, circuitous routing, see Express Companies, 4.
Routing of interurban cars, see Interurban Railways, 18.
of street cars, see Street Railways, 42.
Routing of interstate traffic — Authority of Commission.
1. The control which the state may directly or through a state agency
exercise over trains engaged in interstate traffic, is exceedingly limited.
If the state has the power to direct the routing of interstate traffic where a
railway company maintains more than one line between two points in
the state, it must result from a holding that the exercise of such power
398 Routing
does not directly regulate or place a burden upon interstate commerce,
or that the routing of trains in such instances is such a regulation that
the state may properly act in the matter until the congress has legislated
on the subject and thereby withdrawn the same from the jurisdiction
of the state. Village of Abbotsford v. M. St. P. & S. S. M. R. Co., 1911,
6 R. C. 619, 623.
Routing of shipments — Duty of railroad to route shipments over
lines whereby the freight charges will be least.
2. It is the duty of the railway company, in the absence of any
specific direction to the contrary, to route shipments over lines whereby
the freight charges will be least. Owen & Bro. Co. v. M. St. P. <Sc S. S.
M. R. Co., 1912, 9 R. C. 43, 44; Callaway Fuel Co. v. C. Sc N. W. R. Co.
et al, 1914, 13 R. C. 694, 696.
RULES AND REGULATIONS.
Labels on freight packages of butter, eggs and cheese, regulations for, see
Labels, 1.
1. IN GENERAL.
II. EXPRESS PACKAGES.
III. MINIMUM CHARGES— FREIGHT CHARGES.
IV. ORDERING AND FURNISHING OF CARS.
V. REQUIREMENTS AS TO FURNISHING PARTY LINE TELEPHONE
SERVICE.
VI. REQUIREMENTS AS TO PAYMENT OF RATES FOR SERVICES
RENDERED BY PUBLIC UTILITY.
I. IN GENERAL.
Duty of Commission to determine reasonableness of rules.
1. It is the duty of the Commission to ascertain from all the facts and
circumstances presented in any case the reasonableness of any rule or
regulation respecting the service and, if it shall determine that such rule
or regulation is unreasonable, to change the same or substitute a reasonable
rule or regulation in place thereof. In re Use of Silent Numbers by Wis.
Tel. Co., 1914, 13 R. C. 587, 593.
Filing of rules and regulations with Commission.
2. The company had the right and it was its duty to file all of its
rules and regulations with the Commission as provided by law in order
that the same might be legally effective. So long as such rules are filed
as required by statute, they are binding upon the company and its
patrons. In re Appl. La Crosse Gas Sc El. Co., 1909, 4 R. C. 142.
II. EXPRESS PACKAGES.
Commodities intended for two or more consignees.
3. A rule of an express company, requiring that only commodities
intended for a single consignee shall be shipped in a single package, is a
reasonable regulation. Souvenir Novelty Co. v. American Express Co.,
1907, 1 R. C. 731, 733.
Rules S: Regul. — Requireiri ts as to rate paifirCts to pub. util. 399
III. MINIMUM CHARGES— FREIGHT CHARGES.
Double ininimuin on mixed carloads of grains and seeds.
4. The practice of the C. St. P. M. & O. Ry. Co. in charging a double
minimum on a shipment of flax and rye from Clear Lake to Itasca, led
to an investigation by the Commission on its own motion into the practice
of charging a double minimum on shipments of mixed carloads of grains
and seeds. The Western Trunk Line rules and the tariffs in force on the
C. St. P. M. & O. Ry. Co. show that technically such practice is in accord-
ance with the published schedules. Held: That the rules now in force
are unreasonable, and the C. St. P. M. & O. Ry. Co. is ordered to modify
its tariff schedules so as to eliminate such double minima. In re Mixed
Carloads of Grains and Seeds, 1910, 5 R. C. 711, 713.
IV. ORDERING AND FURNISHING OF CARS.
Minimum loading requirements.
5. The rules and regulations relative to the ordering and furnishing
of cars are reasonable ones, and the minima prescribed for the various
sized cars in use in the respondent's tariff in the present case are not
unnecessarily burdensome upon shippers. Experience has demonstrated
that these requirements are just and should not be disturbed. If the
shipper desires any particular sized car, it is his duty to order the same.
In the absence of such order the carrier is permitted to furnish such car
as it has available for the transportation in question. Krouskop v. C. M.
& St. P. R. Co., 1910, 6 R. C. 178, 181.
V. REQUIREMENT AS TO FURNISHING PARTY LINE
TELEPHONE SERVICE.
Reasonableness of rule.
6. A rule providing that a utility will not hold itself liable to furnish
party line service unless the line can be kept full to capacity, held to be
unreasonable. In re Appl. Badger State Tel. & Teleg. Co., 1914, 14 R. C.
407.
VI. REQUIREMENTS AS TO PAYMENT OF RATES FOR
SERVICES RENDERED BY PUBLIC UTILITY.
Necessity for prompt payment.
7. In order to properly discharge its obligation to its patrons, it is
manifestly essential that the company receive promptly, at stated periods,
all indebtedness due for service rendered, and that no losses be incurred,
if preventable, by reason of uncollectible accounts of either the dishonest
or the impecunious patron. The necessity of some regulation, therefore,
that will accomplish this object, is apparent upon consideration of the
nature and character of the company's public undertaking. Berend v.
Wis. Tel. Co., 1909, 4 R. C. 150, 155; In re Appl. Oconto City Water
Supply Co., 1910, 5 R. C. 691, 692; In re Refusal Farmers' Union Tel.
• 400 Rules d: ReguL — Requirem'ts as to rate pajjm'ts to pub, util.
Co. to Furnish Service, 1913, 13 R. C. 399, 401; In re Refusal of Service
by Madison Gas & El. Co., 1914, 13 R. C. 518, 522.
Payment of full amount by each party using common fixtures.
8. Objection was made to a rule providing that any fixture located in
any public place will be rated for the full amount that would be chargeable
to different parties having access to the fixtures at the same rates that
would be charged if each of the parties had the same fixtures independent
of each other. The basis upon which such rule has generally been upheld,
is that the charge is in the nature of a minimum charge, which may be
made the same for each consumer. A strict adherence to the cost principle
may not justify the practice as outlined by this rule, but so long as each
consumer has the option of having fixtures in his own office at the same
rate, no injustice appears to exist in the present system of charging. The
proper extension of the system of metering would seem to furnish the best
means of overcoming any difficulties which may arise. City of Janesville
V. Janesville \V. Co., 1911, 7 R. C. 628, 682.
Payments to be uniform without reference to contractual rela-
tions between utility and its cxislomers.
9. The refusal of the telephone company to accept as full payment
for its services a sum less than the full rate which other subscribers are
required to pay for similar services was in accord with the plain duty of
the company under sec. 1797m-90 of the Statutes. It is the intent of
this section that the payment for services rendered by a utility shall
be uniform without reference to any contractual relations existing between
the utility and its subscribers. In re Refusal Farmers' Union Tel. Co.
to Furnish Service, 1913, 13 R. C. 399, 400.
Publicity to be given rules and regulations.
10. All utility companies are required by law to file rules and regula-
tions and charges governing connections with consumers and everything
related thereto. Davis et al. v. Wis. Tel. Co., 1909, 4 R. C. 370, 372.
11. Complaint that the Wis. Tel. Co. does not furnish the subscribers
at its Hortonville exchange with a printed schedule of rates and rules.
The evidence shows that the respondent's rates for Hortonville are set
forth in a typewritten sheet of instructions, which is on file in the manager's
office and is open to inspection by the pubfic as required by law. Davis
et al. v. Wis. Tel. Co., 1909, 4 R. C. 370, 371, 383.
Published rules governing services and charges must be applied
impartially.
12. The published rules and regulations and charges for service
connections with telephone subscribers apply in all cases, under sub-
stantially similar conditions, whether the applicant for service is entirely
new or a former patron who has returned to the company. If the service
which the company is required to perform for both new and former
patrons is the same, the charge must be the same. Any variation in the
charge, assuming similar conditions, would be unjust discrimination
prohibited by law. Davis et al. v. Wis. Tel. Co., 1909, 4 R. C. 370, 372-
373.
Rules cfc Regul. — RequirenrCis as to rate nnpm'fy to pub, util. 401
Reasonableness of regulations.
13. Rules and regulations of various kinds, having for their purpose
the enforcement of the prompt payment of all indebtedness owing for
services rendered by a public utility in the discharge of its public function
to the public, and the elimination of chances of loss caused by extending
credit to those who are unwilling or unable to pay, have long been in
vogue, and their reasonableness has been passed upon by the courts in
many instances. Berend v. Wis. Tel. Co., 1909, 4 R. C. 150, 156.
Regulations for discounts or penalties.
14. It is lawful to offer discounts from the regular bill, on condition of
payment on or before a certain date, or advance payments, provided that
such discount rules are strictly complied with, without discrimination.
No allowance should be made for failure to receive a bill through the mails
or otherwise, or on account of the absence of the subscriber, or other
causes. In re Free and Reduced Rates Tel. Service, 1908, 2 R. G. 521, 545.
15. A rule of a water company requiring water rates to be paid
quarterly, adding a penalty of 5 per cent in case of default in payment for
ten days and providing that after default for fifteen days the water
should be shut off from the premises, is a reasonable regulation and en-
forceable against consumers. (Tacoma Hotel Co. v. Tacoma Lt. <$: W.,
Co., 1891, 3 Wash. 316, 325.) Berend v. Wis. Tel. Co., 1909, 4 R. C. 150,
159.
16. The following rules for the protection of a public utility against
loss of operating revenues because of uncollectible accounts, and for the
securing of the prompt receipt of all moneys due for services performed
or product furnished, may be deduced as reasonable regulations which
may be lawfully prescribed and enforced by a public utility: 1. It may
require of any patron the deposit of a reasonable sum of money as security
for the prompt payment of bills when due. In determining the reason-
ableness of the amount thus to be deposited, the probable amount of the
indebtedness that may be incurred during the month or other stated
period at the end of which bills are made out and rendered, is an important
factor. No more than a sum sufficient to furnish adequate security for
the credit extended may be legally exacted. 2. It may require satis-
factory security to be furnished in lieu of such deposit. 3. It may allow
a discount upon bills paid on or before a stated day, or exact a penalty
for failure to make payment within a certain time. 4. For neglect or
refusal on the part of any patron to comply with any of the legal rules
and regulations established, it may discontinue service to such patron.
Berend v. Wis. Tel. Co., 1909, 4 R. C. 150, 159-160; In re Refusal Farmers'
Union Tel. Co. to Furnish Service, 1913, 13 R. C. 399, 401.
17. The Commission investigated the complaint that the North-
western Lt. & P. Co. unjustly collected a 5 per cent prompt payment
discount. Held: The collection of the 5 per cent discount in the present
case was proper since petitioner did not pay his bill until two days after
the last discount day. In re Invest. Northwestern Lt. <Sc P. Co., 1911,
7 R. C. 59, 69-70.
18. Certain amount of free toll service allowed for prompt payment
402 Rules Jc Regul. — Requirem'ts as to rate paunrCts to pub, util .
of telephone bills. In re Invest. Rates and Regulations of Eagle Tel. Co.,
1914, 15 R. G. 397, 401. " *
Regulations for discounts or penalties — Establishment of dis-
count rules.
19. Rules for discount for prompt payment of bills established:
Electric Utilities. — In re Appl. Fox River Millg. Sc P. Co., 1907,
2 R. C. 135; In re Appl. Alma El. Li. Co., 1907, 2 R. G. 144; In re Appl.
Chetek Lt. cfc P. Co., 1908, 2 R. G. 662; In re Appl. Stoughton Mun. El.
Lt. Plant, 1909, 3 R. C. 484; In re Appl. Men. & Mar. Lt. & Tr. Co.,
1909, 3 R. G. 778; In re Appl. No. Milw. Lt. & P. Co., 1909, 4 R. G. 89;
State Journal Prtg. Co. v. Madison Gas & El. Co., 1910, 4 R. G. 501;
City of Ripon v. Ripon Lt. <Sc W. Co., 1910, 5 R. G. 1; /n re Appl. Jefferson
Mun. El. Lt. & W. Plant, 1910, 5 R. G. 555; In re Appl. Eagle River Lt. &
W. Co., 1911, 6 R. G. 521; In re Appl. Red Cedar Valley El. Co., 1911,
6 R. G. 717; City of Beloit v. Beloit W. G. Sc El. Co., 1911, 7 R. G. 187;
Kenosha El. Ry. Co. v. Kenosha Gas & El. Co., 1911, 8 R. G. 119; City
of Rhinelander v. Rhinelander Ltg. Co., 1912, 9 R. G. 406; In re Invest.
Milw. Electric Rates, 1912, 9 R. G. 541; Superior Comml. Club et al. v.
Superior W. Lt. Sc P. Co., 1912, 10 R. G. 704; In re Appl New Glarus
Mun. El. Lt. Sc W. Plant, 1912, 11 R. G. 53; In re Invest. Evansville EL
Lt. Sc W. Plant, 1912, 11 R. G. 197; In re Appl. Chetek Lt. Sc P. Co.,
1912, 11 R. G. 227; In re Appl. Columbus W. Sc Lt. Comm., 1913, 11 R. G.
449; In re Appl. Ft. Atkinson W. Sc Lt. Comm., 1913, 12 R. G. 260; City
of Green Bay v. Green Bay Gas Sc El. Co., 1913, 12 R. G. 324; Douglas et al.
V. Equitable El. Lt. Co., 1913, 12 R. G. 337; In re Invest. Electric Rates in
Oconto, 1913, 12 R. G. 584; In re Appl. Neshkoro Lt. Sc P. Co., 1913,
13 R. G. 52; City of Waukesha v. Waukesha G. Sc El. Co., 1913, 13 R. G.
100; In re Madison G. Sc El. Co., 1913, 13 R. G. 259; In re Appl. Darling-
ton EL Lt. Sc W. P. Co., 1913, 13 R. G.'344; In re AppL City of Menasha,
1913, 13 R. G. 424; In re AppL ML Horeb Ht. Lt. Sc P. Co., 1914, 13 R. G.
653; In re Appl. Village of Withee, 1914, 13 R. G. 704; In re Invest. Mosinee
EL Lt. Sc P. Co., 1914, 13 R. G. 712; In re Stevens PL Ltg. Co., 1914,
14 R. G. 350; Douglas et aL v. Equitable EL Lt. Co., 1914, 14 R. G. 381;
Kittleson et aL v. Elroy Mun. W. Sc Lt. Plant, 1914, 14 R. G. 485; Jones
et aL V. Berlin Public Service Co., 1914, 15 R. G. 121; In re AppL Sun
Prairie Mun. EL Plant, 1914, 15 R. G. 189; In re AppL Burkhardt Millg.
Sc EL P. Co., 1914, 15 R. G. 409; In re AppL United Ht. Lt. Sc P. Co.,
1914, 15 R. G. 505; In re Invest. Waterloo Mun. W. Sc EL Plant, 1914,
15 R. G. 534.
Gas Utilities. — In re Appl. Manitowoc Gas Co., 1908, 3 R. G. 163;
State Journal Prtg. Co. v. Madison Gas Sc EL Co., 1910, 4 R. G. 501;
City of Ripon v. Ripon Lt. Sc W. Co., 1910, 5 R. G. 1; City of Racine v.
Racine G. Lt. Co., 1911, 6 R. G. 228; City of Beloit v. Beloit W. G. Sc El.
Co., 1911, 7 R. G. 187; City of Neenah v. Wis. Tr. Lt. Ht. Sc P. Co., 1911,
7 R. G. 477; Lothrop v. Village of Sharon, 1912, 8 R. G. 479; Meyer et al. v.
Sheboygan Gas Lt. Co., 1912, 9 R. G. 439; 1913, 11 R. G. 309; City of
Green Bay v. Green Bay Gas Sc EL Co., 1913, 12 R. G. 324; City of Milwaukee
V. Milwaukee Gas Lt. Co., 1913, 12 R. G. 441; City of Waukesha v. Waukesha
G. Sc EL Co., 1913, 13 R. G. 100; In re AppL Manitowoc Gas Co., 1913,
13 R. G. 325; Jones et al. v.^Berlin Public Service Co., 1914, 15 R. G. 12.
Rules Sc Regul. — Reqiiirem'ts as to rate paijirCts to pub, util. 403
Telephone Utilities. — In re Appl. Peivaukee-Sussex Tel. Co., 1909,
3 R. C. 420; In re Oregon Tel. Co., 1909, 3 R. C. 534; In re Appl. Oostburg
Tel. Co., 1910, 4 R. C. 407; In re Appl. Interurban Tel. Co., 1910, 6 R. C.
187; In re Appl. Eleva Farmers' Tel. Co., 1911, 6 R. C. 211; In re Appl.
Brooklyn Tel. Co., 1911, 6 R. C. 573; In re Appl. Evansville Tel. Exch.,
1911, 6 R. C. 639; In re Appl Pewaukee-Sussex Tel. Co., 1911, 7 R. C.
465; In re Appl. Plymouth Tel. Exch., 1912, 9 R. C. 169; In re Appl.
Brodhead Tel. Co., 1912, 9 R. C. 383; In re Appl. Random Lake Tel. Co.,
1912, 11 R. C. 130; In re Appl. Deerfield Tel. Co., 1913, 12 R. C. 672;
In re Appl. Eleva Farmers' Tel. Co., 1914, 14 R. C. 586; In re Appl.
Coloma Tel. Co., 1914, 14 R. C. 594; In re Appl. Cascade Tel. Co., 1914,
14 R. G. 808; In re Appl. Norwalk Ind. Tel. Co., 1914, 15 R. C. 222;
In re Invest. Eagle Tel. Co., 1914, 15 R. C. 397; In re Appl. Clark County
Tel. Co., 1915, 15 R. C. 822.
Water Utilities. — City of Beloit v. Beloit W. G. & El. Co., 1911,
7 R. C. 187; In re Appl. Oconto City W. Supply Co., 1911, 7 R. C. 497;
Lothrop V. Village of Sharon, 1912, 8 R. C. 479; In re Invest. Evansville
El. Lt. & W. Plant, 1912, 11 R. C. 197; Rollins et al. v. Village of Montfort,
1913, 11 R. C. 278; In re Appl. Columbus W. & Lt. Comm., 1913, 11 R. C.
449; In re Appl. F£nnimore Mun. W. & Lt. Plant. 1913, 12 R. C. 194;
Kittleson et al. v. Elroy Mun. W. & Lt. Plant, 1914, 14 R. C. 485.
»
Establishment of penalties.
20. Rules providing penalties for delinquent payment of bills
established :
Electric Utilities. — In re Appl. Village of Wiihee, 1914, 13 R. G.
704.
Telephone Utilities. — In re Appl. Evansville Tel. Exch., 1911,
6 R. C. 639; In re Platteville, Rewey & Ellenboro Tel. Co., 1912, 10 R. G.
534; In re Appl. Peoples Tel. Co., 1913, 11 R. C. 499; In re Appl. Grant
Co. Tel. Co., 1913, 12 R. C. 128; In re Appl. Farmers' Tel. Co. of Beetown,
1914, 13 R. C. 540; In re Appl. Troy & Honey Creek Tel. Co., 1914, 14
R. G. 157; In re Appl. Ettrick Tel. Co., 1914, 14 R. G. 405; In re Appl.
Badger State Tel. Sc Teleg. Co., 1914, 14 R. G. 407; In re Appl. Clark Co.
Tel. Co., 1915, 15 R. G. 822.
Water Utilities.— 7/2 re Appl. City of Sptirta, 1913, 12 R. G. 532;
Dennett et al. v. City of Sheboygan, 1914, 14 R. G. 634.
Regulations for money deposit or security.
21. A rule requiring a subscriber to deposit a reasonable amount of
money to insure the payment of bills is reasonable. The respondent's
rule having been duly published and filed, as required by law, is binding
upon the company as well as upon the public. The fact that the petitioner
offered to give a bond as security for telephone rentals, is, immaterial.
There is no provision in the rules of the company prescribing such security
and the company could not, therefore, have accepted such offer, if it had
chosen to do so, without violating the statute. The giving of such
security might be a convenient and desirable alternative in certain
instances to making a deposit of money, and the rules of many companies
so provide. Unless there is some practicable objection to the policy.
404 Rules <Sc ReguL- — RequireirCts as to rate pajjm^ts topub, util
which is not apparent to us at present, we suggest that the company
modify its rules so as to permit it to accept satisfactory and reUable
security in place of a money deposit whenever it seems prudent to do so.
Berend v. Wis. Tel. Co., 1909, 4 R. C. 150, 154, 160.
Regulations for money deposit or securities.
22. A rule permitting a company to demand security for the gas
consumed, or a deposit of money to secure payment thereof "appears to be
just and necessary to guard against loss. As the delivery of the gas is
necessarily its consumption, and as the amount delivered is ascertained
by the amount consumed, it would seem to be just and right that the
company should not be compelled to furnish it without reasonable
security for payment, in convenient amounts and at proper periods."
(Shepard v. Milwaukee Gas Lt. Co., 1858, 6 Wis. 539, 548.) Berend v.
Wis. Tel. Co., 1909, 4 R. C. 150, 156.
23. A public utility may refuse to furnish service unless the charges
for such service are prepaid, or a sum of money sufTicient to secure the
payment for services rendered during any future interval for which
credit is extended, or a bond to secure such payment is deposited with
the utility, but the utility may not condition the furnishing of service
upon the liquidation of indebtedness to the utility for past service. In re
Refusal of Service by Madison Gas & El. Co., 1914, 13 R. C. 518, 522.
24. A public utility which requires a deposit of money to secure
the payment of bills for future service before rendering service to an
applicant cannot apply the deposit to the payment of indebtedness
previously incurred by the applicant, but must look for its remedies to
the courts of law. In re Refusal of Service by Madison Gas & El. Co., 1914:,
13 R. C. 518, 522.
25. When a consumer moves from one place of residence to another
he may doubtless be treated as a new consumer and be obliged to comply
anew with the rules and regulations then in effect before receiving service
at his new plaice of residence. ^ The acceptance of the application for
service at the new place of residence then constitutes a new and indepen-
dent contract distinct from the contract for service at the former place of
residence. In re Refusal of Service by Madison Gas & El. Co., 1914, 13
R. C. 518, 521.
Establishment of deposit rules.
26. Rules established requiring consumers to deposit money or
security for payment of bills. In re Invest. Waterloo Mun. W. & El.
Plant, 1914, 15 R. C. 534, 550; In re Appl. Clark County Tel. Co. to
Increase Rates, 1915, 15 R. C. 822, 825.
Regulations for payment of rates in advance.
27. The promulgation of a rule requiring the payment of rates in
advance, together with the inducement of a discount, is apparently the
result of good experience and practice and is in the interest of subscribers.
In re Appl. Pewaukee- Sussex Tel. Co., 1909, 3 R. G. 420, 421.
28. A rule of a rural telephone company that telephone rent must be
paid for a period of six months in advance, is reasonable; and a sub-
scriber refusing to comply therewith may be denied service by the com-
Rules (Sc Reg ul. — RequireirC ts as^to rate paijirCts to pub, util. 405
pany. {Buffalo County Tel. Co. v. Turner, 1908, 118 N. W. [Neb.]
1064; Malochee v. Great Southern Tel. & Teleg. Co., 1897, 49 La. Ann.
1690.) Berend v. Wis. Tel. Co., 1909, 4 R. C. 150, 157.
29. A rule of a water company that consumers shall pay three months
in advance for water supply, is reasonable. (Harbison v. Knoxville Water
Co., 1899, 53 S. W. [Tenn.] 993, 996.) Berend v. Wis. Tel. Co., 1909,
4 R. G. 150, 158.
Regulations for service charge when meter serves more than one
customer.
30. Objection was made to a rule providing that where meters serve
more than one tenant, each customer so served will be charged the full
minimum rate. It was ordered that the rule be amended so that in such
cases a service charge of $1 per quarter shall be made for each additional
consumer. City of Janesville v. Janesville W. Co., 1911, 7 R. C. 628,
683, 707.
Regulations for withdrawal of service.
31. It seems to be well settled that for failure or refusal to comply
with the rules and regulations of a public utility a consumer's service
may be discontinued. (27 Am. & Eng. Ency. of Law, 2nd ed., 1940)
(14 Am. & Eng. Ency. of Law, 2nd ed., 931) (Thornton on Law Relating
to Oil & Gas, sec. 547) (30 Am. & Eng. Ency. of Law, 2nd ed., 419)
(51 Gent. L. J. 131-133) (27 Am. Law Reg. N. S. 277). Berend v. Wis.
Tel. Co., 1909, 4 R. G. 150, 159.
32. A rule of a telephone company requiring payment monthly for
telephone service on a specified day succeeding the maturity of the in-
debtedness, and providing that on failure thus to pay the service was to
be discontinued, is a reasonable regulation. (Rushville Cooperative Tel.
Co. V. Irvin, 1901, 27 Ind. App. 62, 68-69, affirmed in Irvin v. Rushville
Cooperative Tel. Co., 1903, 161 Ind. 524.) Berend v. Wis. Tel. Co., 1909,
4 R. G. 150, 157-158.
33. A rule providing that water shall be shut off for failure to comply
with the rules and regulations of the company, and that a charge of one
dollar shall be paid before the water is again turned on, is reasonable.
City of Janesville v. Janesville W. Co., 1911, 7 R. G, 628, 683.
34. Where a patron allows his bills to run until it becomes necessary
to disconnect him from the lines of the utility, it is only reasonable that
he and not the utility should bear the expense of reconnection in case he
again desires to have service. The proposed regulations for discon-
tinuing service in case payment is not made within one month of the time
when it is due and to exact a charge of $1.50 in addition to rentals due for
reconnection of such subscribers does not seem to be unreasonable in
the present case. In re Appl. Platteville, Rewey & Ellenhoro Tel. Co.,
1912, 10 R. G. 534, 539.
35. The rule of a telephone company, which forbids listening on the
line when others are talking and provides that subscribers violating this
rule will, upon proof being made, have their telephones removed by the
company, is a reasonable regulation. {Huffman v. Marcy Mut. Tel. Co.,
1909, 143 la. 590; 121 N. W. 1033.) In re Invest. Pulaski Merchants' <fc
Farmers' Tel. Co., 1912, 10 R. G. 558, 561.
406 Rules & Regul. — Requirem'ts as to rate paijm'ts to pub, util.
Regulation for withdrawal of service. ^
36. When a patron refuses to pay the full amount of rental at the
end of the period when the rental becomes due, the company should
discontinue his service. In this case the company, in the absence of any
rule protecting it against loss of revenue from the refusal of patrons to
meet their obligations, discontinued complainant's service when he
refused to pay the bill in full, and its act in the premises cannot be
questioned. In re Refusal Farmers* Union Tel. Co. to Furnish Service,
1913, 13 R. C. 399, 401-402.
37. Complaint that the C. & N. W. R. Go. refuses to pay for a tele-
phone installed in its depot at Lancaster. Held: The proper course to
follow, if telephone rental is not paid within a reasonable time, would be
to take out the telephone. In re Appl. Farmers* Tel. Co. of Beetown,
1914, 13 R. C. 540, 576.
Refusal of future service.
38. Though a telephone company is justified in discontinuing service
to a subscriber upon his refusal to pay bills rendered him in full, when the
subscriber asks for a renewal of service the company is not justified by
the existence of his previous indebtedness in refusing to give him present
service if he is ready and willing to give the company reasonable security
for the payment of future bills. In re Refusal Farmers* Union Tel. Co.
to Furnish Service, 1913, 13 R. C. 399, 401-402.
39. The authorities are not in accord as to the obligation of a public
utility to serve an applicant who is in arrears at other premises, although
he tenders ready money for present service, but the best considered cases
take the view that it is inconsistent with public duty to refuse service
under such circumstances. In re Refusal of Service by Madison G. Sc
El. Co., 1914, 13 R. C. 518, 521; In re Appl. Burkhardt Millg. Sc El. P. Co.,
1914, 15 R. C. 409, 411.
40. The regulation of the company prohibiting subscribers on party
lines from "listening in" except to ascertain whether the line is open or
busy is reasonable. However, while persistent and gross infractions of
telephone utility rules might warrant a permanent exclusion from the
use of the utihty service, the "listening in" and remarks following were
not of a character, in the present case, to warrant depriving the subscriber
of telephone service indefinitely. After suspension of service for a reason-
able time, reconnection should have been made voluntarily by the com-
pany. In re Refusal Oconto Rural Tel. Co. to Extend Service, 1914, 15
R. C. 277, 278.
Telephone switching rates — Bills rendered directly to connecting
rural companies.
41. The Mineral Pt. Tel. Co. asks that it be permitted to render bills
for switching service directly to the rural companies concerned, instead of
to the subscribers of those companies, as at present. Held: Inasmuch
as the applicant has not the means of compelling payment by individual
subscribers of rural lines because it cannot disconnect them as in the case
of local subscribers, and as no injustice would appear to result from the
Safety Measures 407
proposed change, it is believed to be a reasonable regulation. In re Appl.
Mineral Pt. Tel. Co., 1912, 9 R. C. 285, 304.
RURAL SERVICE.
Refusal to extend rural telephone service, because extension would
decrease revenue derived from toll station, see Telephone
Utilities, 44.
RURAL STATION.
Conversion of a toll station into a rural station, see Telephone Utili-
ties, 12.
RUTABAGAS.
Reasonableness of rates on rutabagas, see Rates — Railroad, 275.
RYE.
Reasonableness of rates on rye, see Rates — Railroad, 276.
r
SAFETY.
Operation of shuttle train considered dangerous to the traveling public,
see Train Service, 22.
Rules for the construction, maintenance and operation of interlocking
plants, see Railroads, 60; Street Railways, 18.
Safety of bridges connecting highways upon which railways are con-
structed, see Bridges, 1.
SAFETY APPLIANCES.
Automatic crossing alarm for protection of interurban railway crossing,
see Interurban Railways, 1.
railroad crossing, see Railroads, 20-23.
Gates for the protection of railroad crossings, see Interurban Railways,
2; Railroads, 28.
Interlocking plants and derailing and signal systems for protection of
railroad crossings, see Railroads, 58.
Sign board for protection of railroad crossings, see Railroads, 33.
Tell tales required for protection of trainmen, see Railroads, 62.
SAFETY MEASURES.
Charge for excess loading, when used as a measure of safety to induce
shippers not to overload, is not unreasonable, see Reparation, 91.
Installation of automatic air brakes for electric cars propelled at high
rate of speed, as a prevention of accidents, see Street Rail-
ways, 30.
Order of Commission requiring better sanitary condition of cars for safety
of public, see Street Railways, 34.
408 Salaries
SALARIES.
Apportionment of salaries of operators in the determination of unit
costs for telephone utilities, see Accounting, 164.
As element considered in making rates for electric utiUties, see Rates —
Electric, 41-42.
Wages of management as element considered in making rates for toll
bridges, see Rates — Toll Bridge, 1.
SAND.
See also Gravel and Sand.
Reasonableness of rates on sand, see Rates — Railroad, 278.
SAND AND GRAVEL.
Establishment of joint rates on sand and gravel, see Rates — Rail-
road, 90.
SANITARY CONDITION OF CARS.
Order of Commission requiring street railway cars to be kept in sanitary
condition, see Street Railways, 34.
SASH. t
Establishment of joint rates on sash and doors, see Rates — Railroad, 91.
SAW LOGS.
See Logs.
SCHEDULES.
Railroad rate schedules, see Schedules or Tariffs.
Street car schedules, see Street Railways, 43-44.
Train schedules, see Train Schedules.
Utility rate schedules, see Schedules for Utilities.
SCHEDULES FOR UTILITIES.
Agreements with consumers relating to rates.
1, The validity of the agreements and understandings alleged by
the opposition to exist between the electric consumers affected by the
proposed increase in rates and the city authorities to the effect that the
said consumers should be charged at the same rates as consumers within
the city, cannot be determined in the absence of satisfactory evidence of
the agreements in question. The contractual nature of these alleged
agreements, however, appears doubtful in any event and no agreement
Schedules for Utilities 409
entered into subsequently to April 1, 1907, would constitute a valid
contract unless filed with and approved by the Commission as part of the
rate schedule. In re Appl. Ft. Atkinson W. 6c Lt. Comm., 1913, 12 R. C.
260, 270.
Departure from published schedule prohibited.
2. Rate schedules should be adhered to in every instance until
changed in the manner provided by statute. National Travelers'' Assn.
of Amer. v. Wis. Tel. Co., 1910, 5 R. C. 678, 689; In re Appl. Platteville,
Reweij & Ellenboro Tel. Co., 1912, 10 R. C. 534, 540; In re Appl. Oakfield
Tel. Co., 1914, 13 R. C. 726, 727.
3. Public utility rates must be fixed and certain, and cannot be in the
form of a stock assessment, which may vary from year to year. In re
Appl. Platteville, Reiveij Sz Ellenboro Tel. Co., 1912, 10 R. C. 534, 540.
4. The fact that the rates applied for had, as the result of a mis-
understanding of the Public Utilities Law, been in actual effect for some
time before application was made to the Commission for authority to
charge such rates, is no indication that the rates in question should remain
undisturbed. In re Appl. Fennimore Mun. W. Sc Lt. Plant, 1913, 12
R. C. 194, 206; In re Village of Wiihee, 1914, 13 R. C. 704, 705.
Extent of publicity to be given schedules.
5. Complaint was made that the Wis. Tel. Co. does not furnish the
subscribers at its Hortonville exchange with a printed schedule of rates
and rules. Some testimony was offered to the effect that the company's
representative at Hortonville did not comply with requests for copies of
rates and contracts. The evidence shows that the respondent's rates for
Hortonville are set forth in a typewritten sheet of instructions, which is
on file in the manager's office and is open to inspection by the public as
required by law. Sec. 1797/77-28 of the Public Utilities Law provides that
all rules and regulations which in any manner affect the rates charged,
shall be filed as a part of the '-'Schedule" of rates. As to the extent- of
publicity to be given that schedule, the next following section provides
that "a copy * * * shall be printed in plain type and kept * * * open
to the public, in such form and place as to be readily accessible to the
public, and as can be conveniently inspected." Held: That there i§
nothing in the testimony to show that the respondent has violated these
provisions of the law. Complaint is dismissed. Davis et at. v. Wis. Tel.
Co., 1909, 4 R. C. 370, 371, 383.
Filing of rules and regulations with Commission.
6. The company had the right and it was its duty to file all its rules
and regulations with the Commission as provided by law in order that
the same might be legally effective. So long as such rules are filed as
required by statute, they are binding upon the company and its patrons.
In re Appl. La Crosse G. & El. Co., 1909, 4 R. C. 142.
Published rules governing service and charges must be applied
impartially.
7. All utility companies are required by law to file rules and regula-
tions and charges governing connections with consumers and everything
410 Schedules for Utilities
related thereto. These rules and charges govern in all cases, under
substantially similar conditions, whether the applicant for service is an
entirely new or a former patron who has returned to the company. If
the service which the company is required to perform for both new and
former patrons is the same, the charge must be the same. Any variation
in the charge, assuming similar conditions, would be unjust discrimination
prohibited by law. Davis et al. v. Wis. Tel. Co., 1909, 4 R. C. 370, 372-373.
Schedules to be filed with Commission.
8. The statute requires every public utility to file with the Commis-
sion schedules of all rates, tolls and charges which it has established, and
also, as a part of such schedules, "all rules and regulations that in any
manner affect the rates charged or to be charged for any service. "
(Wisconsin Stats., sec. 1797/71-27 and sec. 1797/n-28.) National Travelers'
Assn. of Amer. v. Wis. Tel. Co., 1910, 5 R. C. 678, 688.
Water utility to be given choice of schedules contained in order
of Commission.
9. Two schedules have been evolved: Schedule A, based upon the
assumption that the city of Sheboygan pays an increased fire service
charge; and Schedule B, based upon the assumption that no change is
made in the present charge of this service to the city. Two forms of
each of the flat rate portions of the schedules are submitted. Dennett
et al. V. City of Sheboygan, 1914, 14 R. C. 634, 650.
10. Three schedules of rates are designed to fit the different condi-
tions which may arise, depending upon the attitude of the city toward
assuming the burden of fire protection. The utility may choose any one
of these schedules. Hughes et al. v. Watertown W. Wks., 1914, 14 R. G.
669, 687.
SCHEDULES OR TARIFFS.
See also Classification; Rates — Railroad; Reparation.
I. AGREEMENT WITH SHIPPER RELATING TO RATES.
II. CHANGE IN TARIFF.
III. DEPARTURE FROM PUBLISHED TARIFF PROHIBITED.
IV. PUBLICATION OF RATES AND CHARGES.
V. WHEN TARIFF BECOMES LEGALLY EFFECTIVE.
I. AGREEMENT WITH SHIPPERS RELATING TO RATES.
Agreement for different rate than that stated in published sched-
ule.
1. Rates are legally effective only when filed and published in the
manner prescribed by the statute. It is incumbent upon every shipper to
ascertain the lawful rate that may be exacted for any proposed transporta-
tion of goods before billing the same. If he neglects to do so, or is willing
to accept the quotation of an agent of the railway company, he acts at
Schedules or Tariffs. — Change in tariff 411
his peril. {Poor Grain Co. v. C. B. & Q. R. Co., 12 I. C. C. R. 423.)
Beaver Dam Lbr. Co. v. C. St. P. M. & 0. R. Co., 1908, 2 R. C. 700, 701;
Merrill Woodenware Co. v. C. M. & St. P. R. Co., 1908, 3 R. C. 54, 55;
Price V. W. & N. R. Co. et al., 1909, 3 R. C. 467, 469; Barney v. G. B. Sc
W. R. Co. et al., 1910, 4 R. C. 775; Osceola Mill and Elevator Co. v. M. St.
P. & S. S. M. R. Co., 1910, 5 R. C. 291, 292.
2. WTienever the schedule rate in effect is prohibitive or inapplicable
to the transportation of any commodity, it is incumbent upon shippers to
see in advance of shipments of such commodity that a proper rate is
made effective, unless perchance the exigency of the situation will not
admit of delay or the railway company will not accede to the demand for a
different rate than the one prescribed by its schedule. Menasha Wooden
Ware Co. v. W. C. R. Co., 1908, 2 R. C. 589, 591.
3. Any agreement entered into by a railway company with a shipper
respecting the establishment of a rate, but which agreed rate has not
been made effective before the contemplated shipments are made, is
immaterial on the question of a refund, as the latter must be determined
by the rate actually charged. Osceola Mill and Elevator Co. v. M. St. P.
& S. S. M. R. Co., 1910, 5 R. C. 291, 292.
II. CHANGE IN TARIFF.
Authority of Commission in change of tariff. ^
4. The cancellation of a rate that is not illegal requires the approval
of the Commission under sec. 1797-4a of the Statutes. Marinette-Green
Bay Mfg. Co. v. C. M. & St. P. R. Co., 1912, 11 R. C. 133, 135.
Authority of Commission to order changes in tariflfs.
5. The only remedy provided for altering rates, when found by the
Commission to be unjust and unreasonable, is that prescribed by the
statute. Oshkosh Logging Tool Co. v. C. <Sc N. W. R. Co., 1907, 2 R. C.
116; Connor Land & Lbr. Co. v. C. & N. W. R. Co., 1911, 7 R. C. 774, 778.
Change in construction placed on classification.
6. Where a certain express rate had been charged in accordance with
the construction placed on the classification for a period of twenty or
twenty-five years, no change in such construction, resulting in higher
rates, should have been made by the carrier without reasonable notice
to interested shippers. Gross u. U. S. Express Co., 1909, 3 R. C. 342, 345.
Effect of change ordered by Commission.
7. Any change made by the Commission in any rates because they are
unreasonable, only operates to make such rates unjust and unreasonable
from the time of the taking effect of the new or substituted rates. Oshkosh
Logging Tool Co. v. C. & N. W. R. Co., 1907, 2 R. C. 116; Connor Land &
Lbr. Co. V. C. & N. W. R. Co., 1911, 7 R. C. 774, 778.
412 Sched. or Tar. — Departure from puhVd tariff prohibited
III. DEPARTURE FROM PUBLISHED TARIFF PROHIBITED.
In general.
8. All schedules of rates printed and filed as required by the act are
legal and binding upon both the shipper and carrier until changed by the
Commission. Oshkosh Logging Tool Co. v. C. & N. W. R. Co., 1907,
2 R. C. 116; Shong & Son v. S. M. & P. R. Co., 1908, 3 R. C. 40, 41
Merrill Woodenware Co. v. C. M. & St. P. R. Co., 1908, 3 R. C. 54, 56
Fountain-Campbell Lbr. Co. v. C. St. P. M. & 0. R. Co., 1908, 3 R. C. 63, 64
Wis. Coal Co. V. W. C. R. Co., 1909, 3 R. G. 339, 341; Strauss v. American
Express Co. et at., 1909, 3 R. C. 556, 570; Barney u. G. B. Sc W. R. Co. et al.,
1910, 4 R. C. 775, 777; Milwaukee-Waukesha Brwg. Co. v. C. & N. W. R.
Co., 1911, 6 R. C. 518, 519; Connor Land & Lbr. Co. v. C. & N. W. R. Co.,
1911, 7 R. G. 774, 777; Marinette-Green Bay Mfg. Co. v. C. M. & St. P. R.
Co., 1912, 11 R. G. 133, 134-135.
Mistake in quoting rate no excuse for departure.
9. Errors in billing, or erroneous quotations of rates by agents of
railway companies, do not relieve the shipper of the obligation of paying
the lawful rates prescribed in the published tariffs, nor are the railway
companies for any such reasons permitted to exact less than such rates.
Merrill Woodenware Co. v. C. M. <Sc St. P. R. Co., 1908, 3 R. G. 54, 56;
Strauss v. American Express Co. et al., 1909, 3 R. G. 556, 571; Mayer v.
I. C. R. Co. et al., 1909, 4 R. G. 268, 269; Barney v. G. B. & W. R. Co. et al.,
1910, 4 R. G. 775, 777; Wheeler-Timlin Lbr. Co. v. C. M. Sc St. P. R. Co.,
1910, 6 R. G. 434, 435.
Request from connecting carrier no excuse for departure.
10. The fact that the connecting carrier requested track scale weights
to be made by the respondent, did not justify a charge other than the one
prescribed in the published tariff. Shong Sc Son v. S. M. Sc P. R. Co.,
1908, 3 R. a 40, 41.
IV. PUBLIGATION OF RATES AND GHARGES.
Definition of published rate.
11. The word "publish" itself has no technical legal significance. To
arrive at its meaning in a statute we must have recourse to a lexicog-
rapher. The meaning of the word is perhaps as well understood as is any
definition of it. As soon as the tariff in question was issued by the Wis.
Gentral Ry. Go. and copies of it were sent to the stations at which the
commodities moving under it were received and delivered, and a copy
was sent to the party moving freight thereunder, we think such tariff
was made known or divulged or proclaimed or promulgated, and that
it was therefore published within the meaning of the law. Menasha
Wooden Ware Co. v. W. C. R. Co., 1906, 1 R. G. 108, 115.
Purpose of requiring publication.
12. That shippers and travelers may be advised at all times of the
rates and charges which a railway company may lawfully exact for
Scope of Law 413
transportation services, the law requires that two copies of its schedules
"for th^ use of the public shall be filed and kept on file in every depot,
station and office of such railroad where passengers or freight are received
for transportation, in such form and place as to be accessible to the public
and can be conveniently inspected." Merrill Woodenware Co. v. C. M.
& St. P. R. Co., 1908, 3 R. C. 54, 56; Fountain-Campbell Lbr. Co. v.
C. St. P. M. & 0. R. Co., 1908, 3 R. G. 63, 64; Strauss v. American Express
Co. et al, 1909, 3 R. G. 556, 571; Barney v. G. B. & W. R. Co. et at., 1910,
4 R. G. 775, 776-777.
Statutory requirement as to publication and filing.
13. Section 1797-4 of the Wisconsin Statiites requires the respondent
express companies to print in plain type and file with the Gommission
schedules showing all rates and charges for the transportation of
property, and any service in connection therewith, which it has established
and which are in force at the time between points in this state. Two
copies of such schedules for the use of the public shall be filed and kept
on file in every office or station of the company where freight is received
for transportation in such form and place as to be accessible to the public
and convenient for inspection. Strauss v. American Express Co. et al.,
1909, 3 R. G. 556, 570-571.
V. WHEN TARIFF BEGOMES LEGALLY EFFEGTIVE.
Conditions precedent — Filing schedules at stations.
14. In order to make a tariff legally effective, the schedules must be
filed in every station "at places to or from which the rates in such schedules
apply." Kiel Wooden Ware Co. v. C. M. & St. P. R. Co., 1909, 3 R. G.
597, 599.
Filing schedules with the Commission.
15. In order to make a tariff legally effective it must be filed with the
Gommission. Kiel Wooden Ware Co. v. C. M. & St. P. R. Co., 1909,
3 R. G. 597, 598; Whittet v. C. M. 6c St. P. R. Co., 1910, 4 R. G. 480, 482.
Publication of schedules under the Interstate Commerce
Act.
16. The filing of a schedule of rates with the Interstate Commerce
Gommission and the furnishing by the railroad company of copies thereof
to its freight agents incontrovertibly evidenced that the tariff of rates
contained in the schedule had been established and put in force and
neither the shipper nor the railroad company could have been heard to
assert to the contrary. (Texas Sc Pac. R. Co. v. Cisco Oil Mill, 1907,
204, U. S. 449.) Kiel Wooden Ware Co. v. C. M. & St. P. R. Co., 1909,
3 R. G. 597, 599.
SCOPE OF LAW.
See Public Utilities Law; Railroad Law; Stock and Bond
Law; Water Power Law.
414 Scrapers
SCRAPERS. •
Mixture privilege with agricultural implements, see Rates — Railroad
200.
SCRAP IRON.
Reasonableness of switching rates on scrap iron, see Rates — Railroad,
279.
SECURITIES.
Issue by Commission of license to deal in securities, see License, 1.
Securities of public utilities as investments.
1. Securities of public utilities that are not overcapitalized ought to
be among the safest of investments. Such utilities are monopolistic in
their nature and therefore not often exposed to all the hazards of com-
petition. The services they render are, in most instances, necessities.
They are of such nature that people cannot often get along without them.
Conditions are also usually such that these services can be furnished at
rates that are low enough to insure takers, and at the same time high
enough to cover operating expenses, including fair returns on the invest-
ment. Hill et al. v. Antigo W. Co., 1909, 3 R. C. 623, 754.
2. The benefits that might accrue from having the securities placed
among the people which the plants are serving, cannot easily be over-
estimated. But such local markets, particularly among the small
investors, are not likely to be more generally developed until it has been
fully demonstrated that the plants are safely and conservatively managed.
Hill et al. v. Antigo W. Co., 1909, 3 R. C. 623, 755.
SECURITY.
Regulations as to payment of rates for services rendered by public utility,
requirement of security, see Rules and Regulations, 21-26.
SEED PEAS.
Reasonableness of rates on seed peas, see Rates — Railroad, 280.
m
SEEDS.
Minimum weights, double minimum on mixed carloads of grains and seeds,
see Weights, 12.
SELF SUPPORTING.
Not necessary that each branch or section of the system of a railroad be
self-supporting before additional service is furnished, see Rail-
roads, 89.
Service and Facilities 415
SEPARATION OF GRADES.
Separation of grades for elimination of railroad crossings, see Railroads,
52-55.
SERVICE.
Minimum service, certain minimum service must be performed by common
carrier regardless of financial conditions and amount of return,
see Railroads, 85.
Quality of service as element considered in making railroad rates, see
Rates — Railroad, 146.
Standards of service established by Commission, see Electric Utilities,
53-55; Gas Utilities, 8-11; Telephone Utilities, 61.
Adequate service — What constitutes adequate service.
1. "Adequate service is not necessarily the best service which it is
possible to give, but rather the best service which can be given with due
regard to economy to the consumer and to the company." In re Standards
for Gas and Electric Service, 1908, 2 R. C. 632, 642; Vill. of Sharon v.
United Heat Lt. & P. Co., 1913, 13 R. G. 1, 5.
SERVICE AND FACILITIES.
Jurisdiction of Commission over service and facilities, see Railroad
Commission, 32-107. ,
Bridges. — Highway bridges over which railroads are operated, safety of,
see Bridges, 1.
Toll bridges, requirements as to service and facilities, repairs for safety
and convenience of public, see Bridges, 2.
Dams. — Necessity of repairs, opinion of Gommission on request of
company, see Water Pov^^ers, 2.
Electric Utilities. — Appliances for the measurement of product or
service, duty of utility to provide meters, see Electric Utilities,
46-47.
Duty of utility to provide suitable transformers and lightning arresters,
see Electric Utilities, 48.
Quality of service, performance of street lighting system, see Electric
Utilities, 29-37.
Refusal of service for nonpayment of bills rendered, see Electric
Utilities, 52.
Requirements as to service and facilities, adequacy of service, see Electric
Utilities, 39-45.
Standards of service, see Electric Utilities, 53-55.
Express Companies. — Requirements with respect to delivery, see
Express Companies, 2-3.
Gas Utilities. — ^^Appliances for the measurement of product or service,
duty of utility to provide meters, see Gas Utilities, 4-6.
Refusal of service for nonpayment of bills rendered, see Gas Utilities, 7.
416 Service and Facilities
Requirements as to service and facilities, adequacy of service, see Gas
Utilities, 1-3.
Standards of service, see Gas Utilities, 8-11.
Heating Utilities. — Requirements as to service and facilities, regulating
devices, thermostats, see Heating Utilities, 3-4.
Interurban Railways. — Requirements as to service and facilities,
adequacy of service, see Interurban Railways, 14-19.
Station facilities, see Station Facilities.
Public Utilities. — Power of state to regulate service and facilities, see
Public Utilities, 2-4, 8-9.
Railroads. — Duty of carrier to furnish size and kind of car adapted {o
the shipment to be made, see Railroads, 78.
Elevator facilities, see Railroads, 83; Warehouses.
Express facilities, see Railroads, 84.
Interlocking plants, see Railroads, 60.
Motor car service, adequacy of service, see Train Service, 18.
Special equipment, see Railroads, 92.
Station facilities, see Station Facilities.
Switching service, see Railroads, 93-94; Switch Connections, 27-28.
Telephone facilities, see Railroads, 97; Station Facilities, 32-35.
Track connections, see Connecting Carriers, 3-4; Switch Connections,
25-26.
Traffic, interchange of, see Connecting Carriers, 1; Switch Connec-
tions, 27.
Train schedules, see Train Schedules.
Train service, see Train Service.
Transit privileges, see Transit Privileges.
Street Railways. — Requirements as to service and facilities, adequacy
of service, see Street Railways, 27-49.
Carrying of freight, see Street Railways, 31.
Extensions and additions, see Street Railways, 16-17.
Interlocking plants, see Street Railways, 18.
Telegraph Companies. — Requirements as to service and facilities,
adequacy of service, see Telegraph Companies, 1.
Telephone Utilities. — Requirements as to service and facilities,
adequacy of service, see Telephone Utilities, 43-54.
Duty of utility to provide instruments, see Telephone Utilities, 55.
Extension of lines, see Telephone Utilities, 8-25.
Physical connection, see Telephone Utilities, 31-41.
Standards of service, see Telephone Utilities, 61.
Withdrawal of service, see Telephone Utilities, 57-60.
Warehouses. — Requirements as to service and facilities, special bins,
see Warehouses, 5.
Water Utilities. — Requirements as to service and facilities, adequacy
of service, see Water Utilities, 23-26.
Appliances for the measurement of product or service, duty of utility to
provide meters, see Water Utilities, 27-31.
Extension of mains, see Water Utilities, 3-12.
Quality of water, see Water Utilities, 36-38.
Shipping Contract 417
Services, duty of utility to provide services, see Water Utilities, 39-40.
Services, leaks in services, see Water Utilities, 41.
Standards of service, see Water Utilities, 43-45.
SERVICE CHARGES.
See Minimum Charges; Rates — Electric; Rates — Gas; Rates —
Water.
SERVICE CONNECTIONS.
As element in the valuation of public utilities, see Valuation, 110-111.
SERVICES.
Duty of utility to provide services, see Water Utilities, 39-40.
SERVICE VALUE.
Determination of the value of property of .public utilities, plant must be
considered as a going concern, see Valuation, 38-41, 164.
SERVITUDE.
Additional servitude upon highway occupied for interurban operation,
see Franchises, 14.
SEWERiFLUSHING RATES.
See Rates — Water, 87.
SHIPMENT COSTS.
As element considered in making rates for express companies, see Rates —
Express, 4.
As matter considered in determining reasonableness of rates for express
companies, see Rates — Express, 10-11.
SHIPPER.
Duty of shipper to ascertain the lawful rate before making shipment, see
Railroads, 66-67.
Needs of shipper as element considered in making railroad rates, see
Rates — Railroad, 142.
SHIPPING CONTRACT.
See Contract of Shipment.
14
418 Shipping Directions
SHIPPING DIRECTIONS.
Duty of railroad company with respect to shipping directions, see Rail-
roads, 102.
SHIPPING FACILITIES.
See Station Facilities; Switch Connections.
SHOCKS.
Reasonableness of rates on box shooks, see Rates — Railroad, 210.
SHORT HAUL.
Length of haul as element considered in making railroad rates, see Rates —
Railroad, 136-137.
SHORT AND LONG HOUR USE.
'As element considered in making electric rates, see Rates — Elegdric,
30-33.
Discrimination between consumers of electric utility due to failure to
observe difference in cost between long and short hour use of
current, see Discrimination, 9.
SHORT TIME RATE.
Rate for short time or seasonal service, see Rates — Electric, 88; Rates-
Telephone, 70-71.
SHUTTLE TRAIN.
Operation of shuttle train considered dangerous under certain conditions,
see Train Service, 22.
SIDETRACK FACILITIES.
See Switch Connections.
SIGNAL LIGHTS.
Installation of, see Railroads, 22.
SIGNAL PROTECTION.
Signal protection for spur track, see Switch Connections, 22.
SIGNAL SYSTEM.
Installation of signal system for protection of railroad-by-railroad crossing,
see Railroads, 58.
Slabs 419
SIGN BOARD.
Erection of sign board at railroad crossing, see Railroads, 33.
SIGN OR DISPLAY LIGHTING.
Rates for sign or display lighting, see Rates — Electric, 7.
SIGNS.
Street railway car signs, see Street Railways, 45.
"SILENT NUMBER" TELEPHONES.
Provision of "silent number" telephones not an unjust discrimination, see
Discrimination, 104.
SILENT RINGING TELEPHONES.
Charge for installing and rates for service, see Rates — Telephone, 72.
SILOS.
Reasonableness of rates on. silos, see Rates — Railroad, 281.
SINGLE FARE LIMITS.
For street railways, see Rates — Street Railway, 6.
SINGLE PACKAGES.
Must go to single consignee.
1. Rule of express company requiring that only commodities intended
for a single consignee shall be shipped in a single package, held to be
reasonable. Souvenir Novelty Co. v. American Exp. Co., 1907, 1 R. G. 731.
SINKING FUND.
Inclusion of sinking fund charge for retiring bonds as an element in making
rates for municipal public utilities, discrimination in favor of
taxpayers as against consumers, see Discrimination, 45.
SIZE OF SHIPMENT.
As matter considered in determining reasonableness of rates for express
companies, see Rates — Express, 12.
SLABS.
Reasonableness of rates on slabs, see Rates — Railroad, 282.
420 Slab Wood
SLAB WOOD.
Reasonableness of rates on slab wood, see Rates — Railroad, 302.
SLAG.
Reasonableness of rates on slag, see Rates— Railroad, 283.
SLEEPING CAR SERVICE.
See Train Service, 23.
SLIDING SCALE MINIMUM.
See Weights, 8.
SMALL POWER OR INCIDENTAL APPLIANCES.
Rates for small power or incidental electrical appliances, see Rates —
Electric, 5, 8.
Treatment of incidental electrical appliances in determining active
lighting load, see Rates — Electric, 15-16.
SPACE.
Relation of weight of article to space occupied as element considered in
making railroad rates, see Rates — Railroad, 151-152.
SPECIAL BINS.
Special bins in grain elevators deemed impracticable, see Warehouses, 5.
SPECIAL CONTRACTS.
See Contracts; Contract of Shipment.
Special contracts with large users of electrical power, see Rates — Elec-
tric, 89-90.
Special contract rates are lawful provided they are open to all shippers of a
like kind of trafTKi under similar circumstances and conditions,
^ see Rates — Railroad, 62.
SPECIAL EQUIPMENT.
Railroad service and facilities, provision for special equipment, see
Railroads, 310.
SPECIAL RATES.
Status of special rates provided for in contracts entered into before the
passage of the Public Utilities Law, see Rates — Telephone,
10-11.
Standard Cars 421
SPECIAL SERVICE RATES.
Special service rates, different rates for different classes of railroad
service, see Rates — Railroad, 12-103, 310-322.
of telephone service, see Rates — Telephone, 1, 3-11, 17-19, 30-31,
44, 70, 72, 77.
SPECIFICATION.
Approval of specification for construction of railroad, see Railroads, 2.
SPECULATION.
Public Convenience and Necessity Law, purpose of, to prevent objection
to railway lines for speculative purposes, see Certificate of
Public Convenience and Necessity, 6.
SPECULATIVE GAINS.
Speculative gains as element in profits, see Return, 38-40.
Speculative gains should be recognized under competitive condition
only, see Valuation, 26.
SPEED OF TRAINS.
Limitation of speed of trains for protection of railroad crossings, see
Railroads, 31.
"SPOTTING" OF FREIGHT CARS.
"Spotting" of freight cars on public street, see Switch Connections, 24.
SPRINGS.
Reasonableness of rates on vehicle springs, see Rates— Railroads, 284.
SPRINKLER SYSTEM.
Rates for sprinkler systems, see Rates — Water, 4-5.
SPUR TRACKS.
See Switch Connections.
Operation of a spur track as a private highway, see Railroads, 74.
STANDARD CARS.
Relation of jimmy cars to standard cars, see Rates — Railroad, 13.
422 Standards of Service
STANDARDS OF SERVICE.
For electric utilities, see Electric Utilities, 53-55.
For gas utilities, see Gas Utilities, 8-11.
For telephone utilities, see Telephone Utilities, 61.
"STANDBY" OR EMERGENCY SERVICE.
Rates for emergency or "standby" service, see Rates — Electric, 9;
Rates — Water, 3.
STANDPIPES.
Rates for standpipes for private fire protection, see Rates — Water, 4-5.
STAPLES, NAILS, BARBWIRE AND WIRE FENCING.
Reasonableness of rates on staples, nails, etc., see Rates — Railroad, 297.
STATE REGULATION.
Public utilities, legislative regulation of, through comrriissions, see Public
Utilities, 8.
Public utilities, safety of public utility investments under puWic utility
legislation, see Investments, 1. . •
STATE STATUTES.
Statutes aflfecting interstate commerce — Telegrams.
1. A statute requiring telegraph companies to receive messages and ,
to transmit them upon tender of the proper charge, and to deliver them
with due diligence to the addressee is a proper exercise of the police power
of the state in relation to messages received from points without the state
and addressed to persons at points within the state. Such a statute is of a
nature that is in aid of the performance of a duty of the company that
would exist in the absence of any such statute, and it is in nowise obstruc-
tive of its duty as a telegraph company. So long as congress is silent
upon the subject, we think it is within the power of the state government
to enact legislation of this nature. {Western Union Telegraph Co. v.
James, 1896, 162 U. S. 650.) Strauss v. American Express Co. et al.,
1909, 3 R. C. 556, 572-573.
Validity of state enactment on a subject over which the state and
federal authorities have concurrent jurisdiction.
2. The question of the validity of a statute enacted under the police
power of a state on a subject over which the state and the federal
authorities have concurrent jurisdiction and over which the federal
authority has assumed to exercise jurisdiction, is not a mere question of
conflicting laws in the two jurisdictions, so that the law of a state will be
valid so far as not antagonistic to a federal law. ,The question is more
properly one of jurisdiction over the subject; the holding being that
within the second class of subjects as outlined in Covington, etc.. Bridge
Station Facilities 423
Co. V. Kentucky, 1894, 154 U. S. 204, silence of congress is deemed a rele-
gation to the state of such jurisdiction and authority, but action by con-
gress upon the particular subject is deemed an assertion of the federal
power, a declaration of the policy that the subject shall be under federal
and not state regulation, and that, therefore, the power shall no longer
rest in the state to exercise that authority which by the constitution of
the United States was surrendered to the federal government when and
if congress deemed its exercise advisable. (State v. C. M. & St. P. R. Co.,
1908, 117 N. W. [Wis.] 689.) Strauss v. American Express Co. et al;
1909, 3 R. C. 556, 574.
STATION.
*
Deiinition of railroad station.
1. If a place at which passengers and freight are received and dis-
charged by a railway company is a station, regardless of whether a depot
building is erected or not, it does not follow that the mere receiving and
discharging of freight ^nd passengers satisfies the requirements of sec.
1801. That section requires not only the maintenance of a "station"
under certain conditions, but also requires the carrier to "provide the
necessary arrangements, receive and discharge freight and passengers,"
etc. The necessary arrangements to receive and discharge freight, we
assume, would include the furnishing of a suitable warehouse where the
same could be temporarily kept so as to preserve it from the elements and
from theft. This would necessarily mean that some one should be placed
in charge of such warehouse to receive and deliver freight. It might
be said that it is not necessary in order to receive and discharge passengers
that shelter should be provided for them while they are waiting for trains.
Yet it has been held under a statute providing that, "Railroads having
for their principal object the public accommodation, the proprietors
thereof shall be bound to provide crossings, stations, and other facilities
for the public," a railway company was liable in damages to a passenger
for a disease contracted while waiting for a train at a station during
inclement weather, because the depot building was not heated. (Boothby
V. Grant T. R., 34 At. 157 [N. H.j). If the stopping of trains to receive
and discharge passengers and freight does not make Forestville a station
in the absence of an agent or station building, then it is the duty of the
company under sec. 1801 to establish a station at such place. If Forest-
ville is a station now, it is the duty of the railway company to furnish a
freight and passenger depot under sec. 1797-9. Perry u. A. ScW. R. Co.,
1906, 1 R. C. 223, 229, 230.
STATION FACILITIES.
See also Switch Connections; Train Service.
I. IN GENERAL.
II. INTERURBAN RAILWAYS.
III. RAILROADS.
424 Station Facilities. — In general
I. IN GENERAL.
Carrier to be permitted wide latitude in determining character
of facilities.
1. Relative to the size and character of the building, we may say that
the railway company is in position to determine more accurately such
matters than anyone else. All of these are factors regarding which the
Commission has no definite knowledge, and even if it had this knowledge,
it would scarcely be justified in prescribing, with requisite detail, matters
relating to such a thing as the construction of a railway station. We do
not believe that in the present case we should prescribe the exact dimen-
sions of the proposed station. That should properly be left, in the first
instance, to the best judgment of the railway company, and if the kind of a
station which the railway company may construct should prove to be
inadequate the Commission will then entertain a complaint with reference
to the same and render such a decision as the merits of the question may
warrant. Lieneman v. C. M. & St. P. R. Co., 1907, 2 R. C. 88, 91; Nelson
et al. V. N. P. R. Co., 1911, 7 R. C. 764, 768.
Carrier to be permitted wide latitude in determining necessity
for new stations.
2. The railroad company must be permitted a wide latitude in
determining the necessity for and the order in which stations which are
no longer adequate or serviceablje, shall be replaced with new and modern
structures. Hawes v. C. M. & St. P. R. Co., 1911, 6 R. C. 565, 568.
Duty of carrier to provide adequate station facilities.
3. The fact that passengers have been permitted to wait for trains in
a store near the depot does not relieve a railroad company of its duty to
provide adequate statioh facilities. Cross et al. v. C. & N. W. R. Co.,
1913, 13 R. C. 421, 423.
Location of stations.
4. There is some doubt about the propriety of this Commission
establishing definite locations for depot buildings where such stations are
ordered to be furnished. In deference to the apparent wishes of both
parties to the hearing, we concluded in this instance to fix such location
as we thought under all the circumstances would be proper. Pullen v.
W. C. R. Co., 1906, 1 R. C. 60, 65.
5. Mere distance is and should not be the controlling factor in
determining the location of stations, but the convenience of the public
must be the important^onsideration in such determination. Travelers'
Prot. Assn. of America v. C. & N. W. R. Co., 1913, 11 R. C. 333, 335.
6. The choice of the actual site for a station is properly a function of
the management of a railroad company and should not be interfered with
unless it is established that adequate service or safety of the public is
Station Facilities. — Railroads 425
endangered. City of Rhinelander v. M. St. P. & S. S. M. R. Co., 1912,
8 R. G. 719; City of New Richmond v. M. St. P. (^ S. S. M. R, Co., 1915,
15R. C.615.
Minimum service requirements.
7. There is a certain minimum service to which every community
served by a common carrier is entitled, quite independent of the fmancial
results. Hemmis et al. v. G. B. Sc W. R. Co., 1912, 10 R. C. 626, 628-629.
Traffic conditions, influence of. '
8. To require railway companies to construct new stations and install
agents at places where the volume of trafTic does not warrant such ex-
penditure would place an unjust burden upon the traffic in general. Milan
Store Co. v. M. St. P. <Sc S. S. M. R. Co., 1912, 10 R. G. 399, 402.
Use of private commercial dock of railroad company for public
convenience.
9. The statutes do not confer authority upon the Gommission to
require facilities for the interchange of traffic between land and water
carriers, but were such the case, and assuming that respondent's con-
templated action involves the abandonment of one of its public
functions, it is unlikely that the instant situation would demand positive
action of the Commission; Brown v. Janesville Street Railway Co., 4 R. G.
757, 761; Jack v. Williams, 113 Fed. 823; Covington, etc. Turnpike Co. v.
Sanford, 164, U. S. 578. A railway company should not be required to
maintain and offer its facilities to the public as a gratuity, the maintenance
of the dock and wharf being desired solely for the purpose of accom-
modating the public, irrespective of its necessities in reaching the property
of the company to obtain railroad service. The property in question is
essentially private in character, and subject to the control of the company,
and the company is not required to permit the continued use of its dock
or wharf simply because the public had heretofore been allowed the use of
the dock as a licensee. (Transportation Co. v. Parkersbiirg, 107 U. S. 691.)
City of Ashland v. M. St. P. & S. S. M. R. Co., 1915, 15 R. G. 816.
II. INTERURBAN RAILWAYS.
Adequacy of station facilities — In general.
\ 10. Question of adequacy of facilities in general passed upon. In re
Invest. La Crosse & 0. St. Ry. Co., 1910, 6 R. G. 124; Mahoney v. C. &
M. El. Ry. Co., 1913, 11 R. G. 578; City of Waukesha v. T. M. E. R. &
L. Co. et al., 1913, 13 R. G. 89; City of Kenosha v. C. & M. El. Ry. Co.,
1913, 12 R. G. 257; City of Waukesha v. T. M. E. R. & L. Co. et al, 1913,
13 R. G. 98-99.
III. RAILROADS.
Adequacy of station facilities — Agent.
11. Determination of necessity for employment of station agent.
Grossman v. C. M. Sc St. P. R. Co., 1906, 1 R. G. 254; Pischel v. C. St.
P. M. Sc 0. R. Co., 1910, 4 R. G. 783; Village of Lohrville u. C. Sc N. W. R.
426 Station Facilities. — Railroads
Co., 1912, 8 R. C. 699; Chrisfenson ef al. v. C. St. P. M. & 0. R. Co., 1912,
9 R. G. 477; Bacon v. C. M. & St. P. R. Co., 1913, 12 R. C. 366; Pukall et al.
V. C. & N. W. R. Co., 1913, 13 R, C. 427; Pritchard v. C. St. P. M. & 0.
R. Co., 1914, 13 R. C. 625.
Adequacy of station facilities — Approaches.
12. The maintenance of the driveway in question cannot be regarded
as incumbent upon the railway company, but it is suggested that the
company cooperate with the local authorities, as it has expressed its
willingness to do, in maintaining the road in good condition. Acheson v.
C. & N. W. R. Co., 1913, 12 R. C. 564.
Caretaker.
13. Rai'road ordered to employ caretaker to care for station building.
Perry v. A. & W. R. Co., 1906, 1 R. G. 223; Brown et al. v. M. St. P. &
S. S. M. R. Co., 1910, 5 R. G. 198; McKee et al. v. M. St. P. & S. S. M. R.
Co. et al., 1912, 9 R. G. 342; Anderson et al. v. C. St. P. M. & 0. R. Co.,
1912, 10 R. G. 383; Milan Store Co. v. M. St. P. & S. S. M. R. Co., 1912,
10 R. G. 399; Larson v. M. St. P. & S. S. M. R. Co., 1912, 10 R. G. 430;
High et al. v. C. & N. W. R. Co. et al., 1912, 11 R. G. 90; Ford v. C. <Sc
N. W. R. Co., 1913, 13 R. G. 418; Cross et al. v. C. & N. W. R. Co., 1913,
13 R. G. 421; Rogers v. C. M. & St. P. R. Co., 1914, 13 R. G. 617; Whiters
et al. V. M. St. P. & S. S. M. R. Co., 1914, 14 R. G. 340; Hope et al. v. C.
St. P. M. & 0. R. Co., 1914, 15 R. G. 47; Wubker, Jr., et al. u. C. Sc
N. W. R. Co., 1914, 15 R. G. 326; Keup et al. v. M. St. P. & S. S. M. R. Co.,
1914, 15 R. G. 459; Jenks et al. v. M. St. P. & S. S. M. R. Co., 1914,
15 R. G. 465; Am. Soc. of Equity v. C. St. P. M. & 0. R. Co., 1914, 15 R. G.
489.
Car facilities.
14. Alleged discrimination in distribution of freight cars. Colfax
Produce Co. v. M. St. P. & S. S. M. R. Co., 1914, 14 R. G. 86.
Flag station.
15. Question of necessity for flag station determined. Gosz v.
C. M. <Sc St. P. R. Co., 1908, 2 R. G. 344; Gilbertson et al. v. C. ScN.W. R.
Co., 1912, 10 R. G. 495.
Free storage period.
16. Necessity for lengthening free storage period for freight at certain
stations. Albright et al. v. C. St. P. M. S: 0. R. Co., 1914, 14 R. C. 763;
Buckman v. C. Sc N. W. R. Co., 1914, 15 R.* G. 405.
Joint use of station.
17. Railroad advised to make arrangements for joint use of station
of another railroad. Streveler v. Marathon County R. Co., 1907, 1 R. G.
831.
Milk station.
18. Railroad ordered to establish a milk station with a suitable
platform at the station in question. Wilson et al. v. C. M. & St. P. R. Co
1913, 12 R. G. 696.
Station Facilities. — Railroads 427
Night service.
19. Respondent is ordered to open the station for the convenience of
the public not less than twenty minutes prior to the scheduled arrival of
its northbound night train. Harris et al. v. I. C. R. Co., 1912, 10 R. C.
512.
Platform.
20. Construction of platform ordered. Corey v. M. St. P. <Sc S. S.
M. R. Co., 1906, 1 R. G. 191; Blaser et al. v. C. Sc N. W. R. Co., 1908,
2 R. C. 275; Thorson v. G. N. R. Co., 1913, 12 R. C. 363; Bouk et al. v.
C. M. & St. P. R. Co., 1914, 15 R. C. 8.
Relocation of station.
21 . Station facilities are a part of the service that the railway company
is legally obliged to furnish. If such facilities are not reasonably adequate,
because of the location or character of the building, the company may
be required to provide a depot so located and constructed as to meet the
reasonable requirements of the public. The Commission is empowered,
in a proper case, to fix the point of location of a depot or station. Piillen
V. W. C. R. Co., 1906, 1 R. C. 37; City of Rhinelander v. M. St. P. c^
S. S. M. R. Co., 1912, 8 R. C. 719, 725.
22. Petition for relocation of station dismissed. City of Rhinelander
V. M. St. P. Sc S. S. M. R. Co., 1912, 8 R. C. 719; Conklin el al. v. C. B. &
Q. R. Co., 1913, 12 R. C. 555; Andrew et al. v. C. B. Sc Q. R. Co., 1913,
12 R. C. 567.
23. Relocation of station ordered. Blackman et al. v. C. ct A^. W. R.
Co., 1912, 9 R. C. 50; Von Berg et al. v. C. M. Sc St. P. R. Co., 1914, 15
R. C. 311.
Shelter. ^
24. Erection of shelter for passengers ordered. Blackman et al. v.
C. iSc N. W. R. Co., 1912, 9 R. C. 50; Croty et al. v. C. M. Sc St. P. R. Co.,
1912, 9 R. C. 274; City of Columbus v. C. M. Sc St. P. R. Co., 1912, 9 R. C.
576; City of Menomonie v. C. St. P. M. Sc 0. R. Co., 1912, 10 R. C. 478;
McMillan v. C. M. Sc St. P. R. Co., 1912, 10 R. C. 556; Bouk et al. a
CM. & Si. P. R. Co., 1914, 15 R. C. 8.
Spur track.
25. Petition for construction of spur track dismissed. Corey v.
M. St. P. Sc S. S. M. R. Co., 1906, 1 R. C. 191; Antisdel et al. u: C. M. Sc
St. P. R. Co., 1912, 10 R. C. 404.
26. Spur track ordered constructed. Blaser et al. v. C. Sc N. W. R.
Co., 1908, 2 R. C. 275.
Station buildings.
27. Determination of adequacy of station buildings and facilities in
general. Pullen v. W. C. R. Co., 1906, 1 R. C. 27; Loehr v. p. M. Sc St.
P. R. Co. et al, 1906. 1 R. C. 34; Gmber v. M. St. P. Sc S. S. M. R. Co.,
1906, 1 R. C. 53; Pullen v. W. C. R. Co., 1906, 1 R. C. 60; Guildner v.
C. M. & St. P. R. Co., 1906, 1 R. C. 102; Perry v. A. Sc W. R. Co., 1906,
428 Station Facilities. — Railroads
1 R. C. 223; Grossman v. C. M. & St. P. R. Co., 1906, 1 R. C. 254; Krueger
V. W. C. R. Co., 1906, 1 R. C. 285; Lienemann v. C. M. & St. P. R. Co.,
1907, 2 R. C. 88; Bacon v. S. M. Sc P. R. Co., 1908, 2 R. C. 253; Bowker v.
M. St. P. Sc S. S. M. R. Co., 1908, 2 R. C. 514; Dennis v. K. G. B. &
W. R. Co., 1908, 2 R. C. 575; Lorenz & Lorenz et al. v. C. & N. W. R. Co.,
1909, 4 R. G. 161; Pischel v. C. St. P. M. & 0. R. Co., 1910, 4 R. C. 783;
Brown et al. v. M. St. P. Sc S. S. M. R. Co., 1910, 5 R. C. 198; Hall v.
C. M. Sc St. P. R. Co. et al., 1910, 6 R. G. 23; Strasburg v. C. M. Sc St. P.
R. Co., 1911, 6 R. G. 504; Heaverin v. M. St. P. Sc S. S. M. R. Co., 1911,
6 R. G. 526; Hawes v. C. M. Sc St. P. R. Co., 1911, 6 R. G. 565; Vill. of
Abbotsford v. M. St. P. Sc S. S. M. R. Co., 1911, 6 R. G. 619; Vill. of
Curtiss v.M. St. P. Sc S. S. M. R. Co., 1911, 6 R. G. 655; Nelson et al v.
N. P. R. Co., 1911, 7 R. G. 764; City of Plymouth v. C. M. Sc St. P. R. Co.
et al, 1911, 7 R. G. 770; Sergeant v. C. St. P. M. Sc 0. R. Co., 1911, 8 R. G.
285; Maurer v. M. St. P. Sc S. S. M. R. Co., 1911, 8 R. Gv 301; Winchester
et al. V. M. St. P. Sc S. S. M. R. Co., 1911, 8 R. G. 305; Village of Lohrville
V. C. Sc N. W. R. Co., 1912, 8 R. G. 699; McKee et al. v. M. St. P. Sc 5. S.
M. R. Co. et al., 1912, 9 R. G. 342; Christenson et al. v. C. St. P. M. S:
0. R. Co., 1912, 9 R. G. 477; Anderson et al. v. C. St. P. M. Sc 0. R. Co.,
1912, 10 R. G. 3SS; Milan Store Co. v. M. St. P. Sc S. S. M. R. Co., 1912,
.10 R. G. 399; Larson v. M. St. P. Sc S. S. M. R. Co., 1912, 10 R. G. 430;
Rollis V. C. M. Sc St. P. R. Co., 1912, 10 R. G. 486; Hemmis et al. v. G. B. S:
W. R. Co., 1912, 10 R. G. 626; High et al. v. C. Sc N. W. R. Co. et at.,
1912, 11 R. G. 90; Parkhill v. M. St. P. Sc S. S. M. R. Co., 1912, 11 R. G.
153; Judd Sc Judd et al. v. C. Sc N. W. R. Co., 1912, 11 R. G. 175; Farmers'
Land Sc Cattle Co. v. M. St. P. Sc S. S. M. R. Co., 1913, 11 R. G. 318;
Travelers' Prof. Assn. of America v. C. & N. W. R. Co., 1913, 11 R. G. 363;
Laursen et al. v. M. St. P. Sc S. S. M. R. Co., 1913, 11 R. G. 627; Van
Epps V. M. St. P. Sc S. S. M. R. Co., 1913, 12 R. G. 54; Hall v. C. M. Sc
St. P. R. Co. et al., 1913, 12 R. G. Ill; Dahle et al. v. C. Sc N. W. R. Co.,
1913, 12 R. G. 369; Travelers' Prot. Assn. of America v. C. Sc N. W. R. Co.,
1913, 12 R. G. 439; Anderton et al. v.M. St. P. Sc S. S. M. R. Co., 1913,
12 R; G. 506; Harms et al. v. M. St. P. Sc S. S. M. R. Co., 1913, 12 R. G.
552; City of Clintonville v. C. Sc N. W. R. Co., 1913, 12 R. G. 679; Peterson
M al. V. M. St. P. Sc S. S. M. R. Co., 1913, 12 R. G. 694; Ford v. C. Sc
N. W. R. Co., 1913, 13 R. G. 418; Cross et al. v. C. Sc N. W. R. Co., 1913,
13 R. G. 421 ; Rogers v. C. M. Sc St. P. R. Co., 1914, 13 R. G. 617; Frederick
V. C. Sc N. W. R. Co., 1914, 13 R. G. 646; McMillan v. C. Sc N. W. R. Co.,
1914, 16 R. G. 679; Comml. Club of'Menomonie v. C. St. P. M. Sc 0. R.
Co., 1914, 14 R. G. 123; Horicon Adv. Assn. v. C. M. Sc St. P. R. Co.,
1914, 14 R. G. 144; Village of Sun Prairie v. C. M. Sc St. P. R. Co., 1914,
14 R. G. 332; Whiteis et al. v. M. St. P. Sc S. S. M. R. Co., 1914, 14 R. G.
340; Von Berg et al. v. C. M. Sc St. P. R. Co., 1914, 14 R. G. 553; Abrams
Business Mens Assn. v. C. M. Sc St. P. R. Co., 1914, 14 R. G. 780; Wilkins
Sc Wilkins v. C. M. Sc St. P. R. Co., 1914, 15 R. G. 18; Hope et al. v. C. St.
P. M. Sc 0. R. Co., 1914, 15 R. G. 47; Wubker, Jr. et al. v. C. Sc N. W. R. Co.,
1914, 15 R. G. 326; Tennie et al. v. C. Sc N. W. R. Co., 1914, 15 R. G. 386;
Keup et al. v. M. St. P. Sc S. S. M. R. Co., 1914, 15 R. G. 459; Am. Society
of Equity v. C. St. P. M. Sc 0. R. Co., 1914, 15 R. G. 489; Ziesenis et al. v.
M. St. P. Sc S. S. M. R. Co., 1915, 15 R. G. 585; City of New Richmond v.
Station Facilities. — Railroads 429
M. St. P. & S. S. M. R. Co., 1915, 15 R. G. 615; Frederick v. C. St. P. M.
& 0. R. Co. et al, 1915, 15 R. G. 670.
Adequacy of station facilities — Stock scales.
28. The petition does not involve the question of correct weights or of
faciUties for weighing freight within the meaning of sec. 10, ch. 362, laws
of 1905, as amended. On the other hand the petitioner has in view the
weighing of live stock exclusively for the benefit of the buyer and seller
in ascertaining the price to be paid for such live stock. The determination
of the selling price of live stock before it is offered for shipment to the
railway company is purely a private transaction in which the railway
company has no interest whatsoever. Petition dismissed. Iliff v.
G. B. <Sc W. R. Co., 1907, 2 R. G. 102.
29. Installation of stock scales ordered. Jenks et al. v. M. St. P. Sc
S. S. M. R. Co., 1914, 15 R. G. 465.
Stockyards.
30. Gonstruction of stockyards ordered. Homstad et al. v. C. M.
& St. P. R. Co., 1910, 6 R. G. 1; Funk v. C. M. & St. P. R. Co., 1912,
8 R. G. 582; Hope et al. v. C. St. P. M. Sc 0. R. Co., 1914, 15 R. G. 47.
Switchstand.
31. Petition for relocation of switchboard dismissed. Bradley v.
C. M. & St. P. R. Co., 1909, 4 R. G. 136.
■ Telephone facilities.
32. The telephone is an indispensable aid in the conduct of the
business of a common carrier at any center of population and has become
a necessity, both within the rule of the common law as well as by legislative
enactment. Primarily the determination of the extent and character of
the service rendered by a common carrier is left to the management of
the road. It is only when there is a disregard of its obligations to the
public that interference on the part of the state is justified. It may
employ any telephone or agency it chooses for the conduct of its affairs
with its employes and others when acting in its private capacity and may
select the agencies by which it shall serve the public, but it cannot select
an agency exclusively which for any reason is incapable of fully dis-
charging its duty to the public. People's Tel. Co. v. E. R. Co. of M. et al.,
1908, 2 R. G. 822.
33. The proper course to follow, if telephone rental is not paid within
a reasonable time, would be to take out the telephone. Then the telephone
company may install a pay station in the depot as provided in In re Free
and Reduced Rate Telephone Service, 1908, 2 R. G. 521, 543. In case a pay
station does not seem to answer the requirements the telephone company
may then apply to the Gommission for an order requiring the railroad
company to install adequate telephone facilities. In re Appl. Farmers'
Tel. Co. ofBeetown, 1914, 13 R. G. 540, 576.
34. Under all the circumstances the installation of a second business
telephone in the respondent's station at Darlington is not warranted.
If a more direct connection with the railway depot is desired by the
430 Station Facilities. — Railroads
Darlington Farmers' Tel. Co. and its patrons, a pay station may be
installed in accordance with a previous ruling of the Commission. Bot-
iomley d al. v. C. M. & St. P.R. Co., 1914, 15 R. C. 446.
35. Railroad ordered to install business telephone in station. Lauder
V. C. St. P. M. & 0. R. Co., 1914, 15 R. C. 33; McNaight et al. v. C. M. <Sc
St. P. R. Co., 1914, 15 R. C. 433; Wubker, Jr. et al. v. C. Sc N. W. R. Co.,
1914, 15 R. C. 326.
Adequacy of station f acili lies — Toilet facilities.
36. Railroad ordered to install modern toilet facilities in station.
Blaine v, C. M. <Sc St. P. R. Co., 1914, 15 R. G. 403.
Umbrella. shed.
37. Construction of umbrella shed ordered. Comml. Club of Men-
omonie v. C. St. P. M. <^ 0. R. Co., 1914, 14 R. C. 123; Monk v. C.St. P.
M. & 0. R. Co., 1915, 15 R. C. 635.
Union station.
38. Erection of union station ordered. Storch v. C. M. Sc St. P. R.
Co. et al, 1911, 6 R. C. 663; McMillan et al. v. C. & N. W. R. Co. et al.,
1914, 15 R. C. 227.
39. Petition for erection of union station dismissed. Teasdale v.
C. M. <Sc St. P. R. Co. et al., 1914, 13 R. C. 679; City of New Richmond v.
C. St. P. M. cfc O.R. Co. etal., 1914, 14 R. C. 556.
STATION GROUNDS.
.See Yard Limits.
STATIONS.
See Station Facilities.
Stopping of trains at stations, see Train Service, 24-27.
STATUTES.
Application of ch. 362, laws of 1905, to street railways, see Street
Railways, 1.
Sections of statutes cofistrued, see Public Utilities Law; Railroad
Law; Stock and Bond Law; Water Power Law.
Construction, rules of.
1. It is a well established rule of interpretation, that the general
system of legislation upon the subject matter may be taken into view
In order to aid the construction of one statute relating to the subject,
and that it is proper to consider other statutes in pari materia, whether
they are repealed or unrepealed. {Harrington v. Smith, 1871, 28 Wis.
66.) Lang et al. v. City of La Crosse et al., 1909, 3 R. C. 292, 297.
Stockholders 431
STEAM.
Distribution of consumption of steam by months for heating purposes,
see Heating Utilities, 2.
STEAM GENERATION EXPENSES.
Apportionment of steam generation expenses in the determination of unit
costs for electric utiUties, see Accounting, 25.
STOCK.
See Capital Stock; Live Stock.
STOCK AND BOND LAW.
SECTIONS CONSTRUED.
Sec. 1753-3, ch. 576, laws of 1907, Commission not given alternative
power of refusing or granting authority to issue stocks and bonds.
In re Southern Wis. Ry. Co., 1907, 2 R. C. 47, 61.
STOCK AND BONDS.
Commission without discretionary power.
1. The Commission may not impose limitations not authorized by
the statute nor determine the purposes, terms or conditions upon which
such bonds are to be issued, but is obliged to issue its certificate author-
izing the issue of such bonds to the amount, for the purposes, and upon the
terms proposed by the corporation, if they are legal. In re Southern Wis.
Ry. Co., 1907, 2 R. C. 47, 61.
Granting of present issue of bonds not confirmation of all pr€5-
vious issues.
2. The suggestion has been made that if this Commission authorizes
the present issue of $300,000 of serial bonds it will thereby confirm all
previous bond issues of the Southern Wisconsin Railway Company and
its predecessors. This is true neither in fact nor in law. The legislature
and not this Commission authorizes the present issue of $300,000. This
Commission is charged by the Stock and Bond Law with the sole duty
of securing certain information and thereupon, as explained above, it is
compelled to issue the certificate, unless the proposed issue is illegal or
unauthorized. In re Southern Wis. Ry. Co., 1907, 2 R. C. 47, 60.
STOCK SCALES.
See Station Facilities, 28.
STOCKHOLDERS.
Different rates for stockholders and nonstockholders prohibited, see
Discrimination, 90.
432 Stockyards
STOCKYARDS.
Construction of stockyards ordered, see Station Facilities, 30.
STONE.
Establishment of joint rate on stone, see Rates — Railroad, 93.
Reasonableness of rates on stone, see Rates — Railroad, 228, 244, 253,
285.
STONE PAVING BLOCKS.
Reasonableness of rates on stone paving blocks, see Rates — Railroad,
286.
STONE TAILINGS.
Reasonableness of rates on stone tailings, see Rates — Railroad, 287.
STOPPING IN TRANSIT.
See Rates — Railroad, 172; Transit Privileges.
STOPPING OF CARS.
Stopping of interurban cars between stations, see Interurban Railways,
15-16, 19.
Stopping of street and interurban cars, see Street Railways, 46.
STOPPING OF TRAINS.
Stopping of interstate trains, see Railroad Commission, 58-60.
Stopping of trains for protection of railroad crossings, see Railroads, 34.
at stations, see Train Service, 24-27.
STORAGE CHARGE.
Extension of free storage time for freight under certain conditions, see
, ; Station Facilities, 16; Demurrage Rules.
STORAGE FACILITIES.
See Station Facilities; Switch Connections.
STRAIGHT METER RATES.
Discrimination possible under straight meter rates, see Discrimination,
25.
Uniform or straight meter rates generally undesirable, see Rates —
Electric, 50; Rates — Water, 58.
Street Railways. — Control and regulation in general 433
' ■ ■ ' ■ — ■ , ■ . . t
STREET LIGHTING RATES.
See Rates — Electric, 91-95; Rates — Gas, 20.
STREET RAILWAY RATES.
. See Rates — Street Railway.
STREET RAILWAYS.
See also Interurban Railways.
Application for authority to issue bonds, see Stocks and Bonds, 1-2.
Cost of service of street railways, determination of unit costs, see Account-
ing, 138-150.
Depreciation, rate of depreciation of street railway plants, see Deprecia-
tion, 38-40.
ACCOUNTING.
See Accounting, 138-150.
I. CONTROL AND REGULATION IN GENERAL.
II. ESTABLISHMENT. CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE.
III. OPERATION.
a. Duty to operate. c. Requirements as to service and
b. Joint use of tracks. facilities.
I. CONTROL AND REGULATION IN GENERAL.
Application of ch. 362, laws of 1905, to street railways.
1. Our conclusion is that any street railway company that is not
solely engaged in the transportation of passengers within the limits of
cities is subject to ch. 362, laws of 1905, both as to its urban and inter-
urban business and that the reports of accidents should include both
classes of business. Appl. of Ch. 362, Laws of 1905, to Street Railways,
1906, 1 R. C. 178, 191.
Duty of Commission to enforce reasonably adequate service and
facilities.
2. The duty of furnishing reasonably adequate service and facilities
for the convenience of the public is imposed upon street railway corpora-
tions by law, and in case of any neglect or failure in the performance of
such duty, it is incumbent upon the Commission to enforce the same by
order in a proper proceeding brought for that purpose. Lang et al. v.
City of La Crosse et at., 1909, 3 R. C. 292, 296.
Power of cities to compel the common use of tracks.
3. Every city has authority to compel the common use of tracks
within the city by two street or electric railway companies. Wis. Stat.,
sec. 940y-41. Lang et al. v. City of La Crosse et at., 1909, 3 R. C. 292, 296.
434 Street Railways. — Control and regulation in general
Power of cities with respect to use of public places by public service
corporations.
4. In all legislation pertaining to the control and regulation of public
service corporations, the legislature seenis to have exercised particular
care in preserving the right of cities, especially, to control their streets,
highways and public grounds in respect to the use thereof by such corpora-
tions. This is particularly discernable in the various statutes governing
the construction and operation of railroads. Thus, if any railroad com-
pany desires to construct a line of railroad within this state, or to extend
any existing line, or to construct any unconstructed portion of its
authorized line of railroad, it must first obtain authority therefor from
the Commission, except in the case of the construction or extension of
electric railroads in cities. Wis. Stats., sec. 1797-44 and sec. 1797-53.
Lang et al. v. City of La Crosse et al., 1909, 3 R. C. 292, 296.
Power of Commission to order restoration of service upon an
abandoned line where the abandonment was made without
legal sanction.
5. Power is vested in the Commission to enforce, in any proper case,
the performance of the public functions of a railway company when the
same have been undertaken by the company, and such power cannot be
defeated by an illegal abandonment and tearing up of any portion of the
company's line. But conceding the existence of the power in the Com-
mission and the continuing duty of the company to exercise its franchises
in any particular case, we do not believe that such power and duty,
abstractedly considered, render it imperative or to the public interest
that the power be exercised. While the failure to perform such positive
duty, enjoined either by franchise or statutory provision, is an offense
against sovereignty, such failure may be the inevitable result of unforseen
conditions or conditions arising subsequent to the assumption of the
obligation by the company. The power should never be exercised in a
manner that might threaten any existing service in an endeavor to
establish a new or restore an old service. Brown v. Janesville Street R.
Co., 1910, 4 R. C. 757, 761; Jones v. Wis. Ry. Lt. & P. Co., 1914, 14 R. C.
518, 522.
Power of Commission to regulate service and facilities.
6. The Commission may regulate the service of all electric and surface
street railway companies, whether their lines are within or without the
limits of municipalities, or both, and may also regulate all the facilities
of such corporations devoted to the public service, subject only to the
restrictions and Umitations prescribexi by law. Lang et al. v. City of La
Crosse et al., 1909, 3 R. C. 292, 298.
Street railways subject to regulations under Railroad Commission
Law.
7. Sec. 1797-2 as amended by ch. 582 of the laws of 1907, makes
electric railways particularly subject to the Railroad Commission Law.
City of Milwaukee v. T. M. E. R. & L. Co., 1912, 10 R. C. 1, 11-12.
Street Railways, — Establishm., construct, and mainten. 435
Supervision by municipal councils.
8. Under the Public Utilities Act, ch. 499, laws of 1907, every
municipal council has the power (1) to fix, in the first instance, the terms
and conditions upon which any public utility therein embraced may be
permitted to occupy the public thoroughfares and public property of the
municipality; (2) to require extensions and additions to the plants of any
such public utility, when necessary for the public convenience, and to
designate the location and nature of such extensions and additions, and
prescribe conditions for their construction; and (3) to provide a penalty
for failure to comply with- any such requirements of the municipality.
Wis. Stats., sec. 1797/n-87. Lang et al. v. City of La Crosse et al., 1909,
3 R. C. 292, 296-297.
II. ESTABLISHMENT, CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE.
Abandonment of track — Commission without power to author-
ize or prevent.
9. The Commission has no authority to authorize the construction
or extension of any electric railroad within a city or prevent the abandon-
ment or change of location of any part of such a road constructed under a
franchise granted by the common council, if the council's consent has been
obtained. Lang et al. v. City of La Crosse et at., 1909, 3 R. C. 292, 298;
Brown v. Janesville Street R. Co., 1910, 4 R. C. 757, 761; Jones v. Wis.
Ry. Lt. & P. Co., 1914, 14 R. C. 518, 522; In re Chippewa Val. Ry. Lt. cfc
P. Co., 1914, 14 R. C. 713, 714.
■ Consent of city council necessary.
10. If any electric railway company desires to discontinue or abandon
any part of its road on a public street or highway in a city, thus con-
structed under a franchise granted by the city council, it must first
obtain the consent of the council to such discontinuance or abandonment.
Wis. Stats., sec. 1863a, subd. 1. Lang et al. v. City of La Crosse et al.,
1909, 3 R. C. 292, 297.
Acquisition of franchises or privileges.
11. In cities the common councils are clothed with the power of
granting franchises authorizing the construction or extension of electric
railroads within their corporate limits, and may determine across and
on what streets, alleys, lanes or other public grounds such roads may be
built. Such power is vested exclusively in city councils. Lang et al. v.
City of La Crosse et al., 1909, 3 R. C. 292, 297.
Crossings — Determination as to manner of construction.
12. The manner of construction of all crossings of steam railroads
by steam railroads, and all crossings of electric or street surface railroads
by like railroads or by steam railroads, is determined by the Commission,
excepting when such crossings are at points within the limits of incor-
porated cities. Wis. Stats., sec. 1797-56. Lang et al. v. City of La Crosse
et al., 1909, 3 R. C. 292, 296.
436 Street Railways. — Establlshm., construct, and mainten.
Crossings — Electric by steam road — Construction of grade cross-
ing.
13. Construction of grade crossing ordered. In re Eastern Wis.
Ry. & Lt. Co., 1909, 4 R. G. 127.
Protection of — Flagman.
14. Petition for flagman at crossing dismissed. City of Milwaukee v.
T. M. E. R. <Sc L. Co., 1907, 1 R. C. 662.
Separation of grades — ^Viaduct.
15. Construction of viaduct ordered. In re Mills Street Crossing at
La Crosse, 1913, 13 R. C. 145.
Extension of lines.
16. If the construction of an ordinary railway is contemplated
between two designated terminal stations, the route to be occupied may
perhaps be designated with reasonable certainty in its charter, but a
street railway system intended for the use and convenience of a growing
city for a long period of years presents a different problem. Of necessity,
it must be a growth — a development — and the direction or number of
the lines or tracks which will be required in the future cannot be foretold
with any precision. New streets will be opened, new additions to the
city will be laid out, and other changes not now anticipated will take
place. To meet these contingencies, the city council, in granting a charter
for a comprehensive street railway system, must either in sweeping terms
grant the right to occupy all streets now or hereafter opened, or it must
provide for the extension of lines from time to time as the need therefor
may arise, and the city council direct. These provisions are not for the
granting of new privileges or franchises, but for the reasonable regulation
and control of the company in the use of the franchise originally granted.
To adopt the other plan, and grant a franchise expressly allowing the
company to enter upon and occupy any or all streets, without any power
of veto or regulation by the city council, even if of any validity, would
be a most unwise and impolitic abandonment of an important right.
{Thurston v. Huston, 1904, 123 Iowa, 157, 98 N. W. 637, 639.) City of
Green Bay v. Green Bay Tr. Co., 1911, 7 R. C. 715, 724.
17. In the absence of any charter provision making it obligatory
upon a street railway company to construct and operate its lines on certain
streets for which authority was granted in the franchise, the company
could not be compelled to construct and operate a line on all such streets
for which it had received such authority so to do. (San Antonio Street
R. Co. V. State, 1897, 90 Texas, 520, 526, 527, 528.) City of Merrill v.
Merrill Ry. & Lt. Co., 1910, 5 R. C. 418, 422-425; City of Racine v. T. M.
E. R. & L. Co., 1914, 14 R. C. 148, 149.
Interlocking plants — Rules relating to.
18. The Commission, under the authority conferred by sec. 1797-96
of the Railroad Commission Law, has decided to estabUsh rules for the
construction, maintenance and operation of interlocking plants on rail-
roads and street railways. The rules adopted were prepared jointly.
Street Railways. — Operation 437
with a view to securing uniformity in the states affected, by the engineers
of the Railroad and Warehouse Commissions of Minnesota and Ilhnois,
the PubUc Service Commission of Indiana and the Railroad Commission
of Wisconsin. The rules are to become effective December 1, 1913, and
the managements of all railroads and street railways are ordered to conform
to them. In re Interlocking Plants, 1913, 12 R. C. 718.
III. OPERATION.
a. DUTY TO OPERATE.
Operation at pecuniary loss.
19. A railroad company, in the full enjoyment and use and capacity
to use its franchises, cannot be compelled to exercise its franchises without
reasonable remuneration. (Smythe v. Ames, 1898, 169 U. S. 466; Cov-
ington & Lexington Turnpike Road Co. v. Sandford, 1896, 164 U. S. 578;
Chicago, M. & St. P. R. Co. v. Minnesota, 1890, 134 U. S. 418; Lake
S.& M. S. R. Co. V. Smith, 1899, 173, U. S. 684; Jack v. Williams, 1902, 113
Fed. 823, 827; affirmed in Jack v. Williams, 1906, 145 Fed. 281.) Brown
V. Janesville Street R. Co., 1910, 4 R. C. 757, 762.
20. It seems to be well established that a railway company may not
abandon a portion of its line merely because such portion is unremun-
erative, but must operate its line as a whole. Nevertheless, if the entire
road cannot be operated except at a loss, when economically managed,
nothing can prevent the company from abandoning the enterprise and
forfeiting its charter and franchise. Brown v. Janesville Street R. Co.,
1910, 4 R. C. 757, 764.
b. JOINT USE OF TRACKS.
Establishment of in particular cases.
21. Joint use of tracks ordered. T. M. E. R. & L. Co. v. M. N. R.
Co., 1913, 13 R. C. 268; T. M. E. R. <fc L. Co. v. C & M. El. Ry. Co.,
1913, 13 R. G. 299.
Establishment of — When permissible.
22. Under the law (ch. 62, laws of 1913) the proposed joint use is
permissible unless such use will result in irreparable injury to the owner
or in substantial detriment to the service, always provided, of course,
that such use is required by public convenience and necessity. T. M. E.
R. & L. Co. V. Chi. & Mil. El. Ry. Co., 1913, 13 R. C. 299, 306.
Terms and conditions of joint use — Basis of compensation.
23. Both companies consider that a compensation based upon a rate
per car-mile for the use of the tracks and overhead system in question
would be satisfactory, but the two companies fail to agree upon what
that rate shall be. The Commission, however, for reasons set forth in
T. M. E. R. Sz L. Co. v. M. N. R. Co., 1913, 13 W. R. C. R. 268, 281,
adopts the ton-mileage basis used in that case. T. M. E. R. & L. Co. v.
C. & M. El. Ry. Co., 1913, 13 R. C. 299, 307.
438 Street Railways. — Operation
b. JOINT USE OF TRACKS.— Continued
Terms and conditions of joint use — Influence of competition.
24. Even though the joint use of tracks by competing lines may have
an adverse effect upon the earnings of the company owning the tracks,
the Commission must reject any proposal which would restrict such full
and free use of the tracks as the needs of the community may demand.
T. M. E. R. Sc L. Co. v. M. N. R. Co., 1913, 13 R. G. 268, 285-286.
Liability for accidents.
25. Public policy would appear to forbid the relieving of a railway
company of its natural responsibilities and it is also believed that the
safety of operation will be promoted if each company is obliged to assume
a liability in proportion to its responsibility for any accidents that may
occur. T. M. E. R. & L. Co. v. M. N. R. Co., 1913, 13 R. C. 268, 277;
T. M. E. R. & L. Co. V. C.ScM. El. Ry.Co., 1913, 13 R. G. 299, 306.
• Power.
26. Ordinarily it would seem that the company owning the tracks
should be permitted to furnish the power, if it desires to do so and is in a
position to give adequate power service. T. M. E. R. <Sc L. Co. v. C. Sz
M. El. Ry. Co., 1913, 13 R. G. 299, 309.
c. REQUIREMENTS AS TO SERVICE AND FACILITIES.
Adequacy of service — In general,
27. In arriving at the correct amount of service to be given by a
street railway company on any line, it is essential to measure as closely
as possible the amount of service unconsciously required by the public
at all times of the day and under varying conditions. Washington Park
Adv. Assn. v. T. M. E. R. Sc L. Co., 1911, 7 R. G. 19, 20.
28. The traffic data in the instant case show clearly that there is a
wide variation in. the loading of cars during the non-rush hours and
whatever the cause of this condition may be, while it exists it must be
given consideration in determining the amount of service necessary.
In re Service T. M. E. R. Sc L. Co. in Milwaukee, 1914, 13 R. G. 178, 201.
29. Doorstep street car service for all is not practicable, and the
criterion must be the reasonableness of the distance which a patron is
obliged to walk in order to obtain service. In re Chippewa Yal. Ry.
Lt. Sc P. Co., 1914, 14 R. G. 713, 717.
Automatic air brakes.
30: All double truck cars hereafter acquired or constructed by or for
T. M. E. R. & L. Go. shall be equipped with power brakes of standard
quality and efficiency. City of Milwaukee v. T. M. E. R. Sc L. Co., 1907,
1 R. G. 662, 682-683.
, Carrying of freight.
31. The carriage of freight through the city streets by respondent
would cast an additional burden on the fee, for which abutting owners
would be entitled to compensation. In view of .the reasonable doubt
Street Railways. — Operation _^ 439
as to the existence of the authority contended for in the franchise in
question, the authority cannot be inferred. Wis. Veterans'' Home v.
Waupaca El. Lt. S: R. Co. et al., 1915, 15 R. G. 656, 662.
— Cars.
32. Operation of additional cars ordered: City of Milwaukee v.
T. M. E. R. & L. Co., 1907, 1 R. C. 662; Gillett v. T. M. E. R. S: L. Co. et qL,
1907, 1 R. G. 689; Elver v. So. Wis. Ry. Co., 1912, 11 R. G. 67; City of
Milwaukee v. T. M. E. R. & L. Co., 1913, 11 R. G. 430; In re Service of
T. M. E. R. & L. Co. in Milwaukee, 1913, 13 R. G. 178.
33. Question of improved cars passed upon. In re Invest. La Crosse
& 0. St. Ry. Co., 1910, 6 R. G. 124; Hiestand et al. v. So. Wis. Ry. Co.,
1910, 6 R. G. 162; City of Waukesha v. T. M. E. R. & L. Co. et al., 1913,
13 R. G. 89; In re Service of T. M. E. R. <Sc L. Co. in Milwaukee, 1913,
13 R. G. 178; City of Racine v. T. M. E. R. Sc L. Co., 1914, 14 R, G. 148.
34. Every car in the regular service of T. M. E. R. & L. Go. shall be
thoroughly cleaned at least once each day and no car shall be taken out
of the car house for service unless it has previously been properly cleaned.
City of Milwaukee v. T. M. E. R. & L. Co., 1907, 1 R. G. 662, 680.
Comniutalion tickets, facilities for purchasing.
35. Gommutation tickets, good for transportation between Milwau-
kee and Wauwatosa shall be kept on sale and sold by the conductors
operating the street railway lines running to Wauwatosa, such sales,
however, not being required to be made east of the single fare limits on
said lines. Gillett v. T. M. E. R. & L. Co., 1907, 1 R. G. 689, 711.
Double track.
36. This is a supplementary order relating to matters decided in a
proceeding of the same title on May 26, 1913 (12 R. G. 49) and
October 6, 1913 (12 R. G. 797), and in Elver v. So. Wis. Ry. Co.
on November 26, 1912 (11 R. G. 67). It appears that the lack of double
track facilities has prevented the respondent from complying with the
requirements of the Commission governing the maintenance of a five-
minute schedule on certain portions of the street railway system in the
city of Madison and has interfered with the rendering of the tripper
service ordered by the Commission. Respondent ordered to make
specified extensions of its double track facilities. Rodolf et al. v. So. Wi$.
Ry. Co., 1914, 14 R. G. 598.
Fare collectors.
37. Fare collectors to be stationed at important points to assist in
loading cars during rush periods. City of Milwaukee v. T. M. E. R. <k
L. Co., 1913, 11 R. G. 338; In re Service T. M. E. R. <Sc L. Co. in Mil-
waukee, 1913, 13 R. C. 178.
Hand brakes.
38. The type of hand brake with which the cars of the company are at
present equipped is adequate but careful maintenance is necessary.
Elver V. So. Wis. Ry. Co., 1912, 11 R. G. 1, 71-72.
440 Street Railways. — Operation .
c. REQUIREMENTS AS TO SERVICE AND FACILITIES.— Continued
Adequacy of service — Minimum headway.
39. In determining standards for adequate street railway service it
is necessary to specify what shall be the minimum headway if the public
is to be properly accommodated at periods of the day when travel is
light. In re Service of T. M. E. R. & L. Co. in Milwaukee, 1913, 13 R. C.
178, 202.
Night service.
40. Extension of night service ordered. Rodolf et al. v. So. Wis.
Ry. Co., 1913, 12 R. C. 49.
Notice of change in schedule.
41. No change in time schedules shall be made except on giving
five days' notice and sufficient publicity shall be given said notice to
afford patrons of the street car line reasonable means of information
concerning the nature of such changes in time, before the same become
effective. Gilleit v. T. M. E. R. & L. Co., 1907, 1 R. C. 689, 711.
— — Routing of cars.
42. Routing of cars prescribed in particular cases. Froehlich et al.
V. T. M. E. R. Sc L. Co., 1910, 4 R. C. 439; City of Milwaukee v. T. M. E.
R. & L. Co., 1911, 8 R. C. 295; 1912, 8 R. C. 535; In re Service of T. M.
E. R. iSc L. Co. in Milwaukee, 1913, 13 R. C. 178; Twenty-Second Ward
Advancement Assn. v. T. M. E. R. & L. Co., 1914, 14 R. G. 788; 1915, 15
R. C. 593.
Schedule making a managerial detail for the street railway
company.
43. Conditions of traffic vary from year to year and with the seasons
of the year, and to meet such changes schedules must be flexible. Should
the Commission specify the headway on each line, it would be necessary
for it to make a constant study of changes in the volume of traffic and
modify its orders from time to time. In short, the Commission would,
by so doing, place itself at the service of the Company, filling a need
which should rather be met by an efficient traffic study department.
In re Service of T. M. E. R. Sc L. Co. in Milwaukee, 1913, 13 R. C. 178,
211-212.
Schedules.
44. Establishment of schedules ordered. City of Milwaukee v.
T. M. E. R. <Sc L. Co., 1907, 1 R. C. 662; Gillett v. T. M. E. R. & L. Co. et at.,
1907, 1 R. C. 689; Hiestand et al. v. So. Wis. Ry. Co., 1910, 6 R. C. 162;
Washington Park Adv. Assn. v. T. M. E. R. & L. Co., 1911, 7 R. C. 19;
Elver V. So. Wis. Ry. Co., 1912, 9 R. C. 1; 11 R. C. 67; Buergin et al. v.
So. Wis. Ry. Co., 1913, 11 R. C. 762; 12 R. C. 167; Rodolf et al. v. So.
Wis. Ry. Co., 1913, 12 R. C. 49, 707; Jones v. Wis. Ry. Lt. & P. Co.,
1914, 14 R. C. 518; 15 R. C. 174.
Signs on cars.
45. It is believed that no car should be operated without having
adequate destination signs as well as adequate and conspicuous signs
Streets 441
plainly showing the route upon which the car is operating. City of
Milwaukee v. T. M. E. R. & L. Co., 1913, 11 R. C. 338, 342; In re Service
T. M. E. R. Sc L. Co. in Milwaukee, 1914, 13 R. C. 178.
Stopping of cars.
46. Stopping of cars ordered to render adequate service. C. C.
Pollworth Co. V. T. M. E. R. & L. Co., 1909, 3 R. C. 392; Strache v. T. M.
E. R. Sc L. Co., 1913, 12 R. C. 404; City of Kenosha v. Kenosha El. Ry. Co.
et al., 1913, 12 R. C. 508; City of Waukesha v. T. M. E. R. <Sc L. Co. et al.,
1913, 13 R. C. 89.
Traffic officers.
47. Traffic officers to be stationed at important points to assist in
handling traffic. In re Service T. M. E. R. Sc L. Co. in Milwaukee, 1913,
13 R. C. 178.
Transfer connections.
48. Cars shall wait for delayed westbound Wells street cars, at
least three minutes under ordinary conditions and at least five minutes in
inclement weather, so as to obviate unreasonable delay and hardship to
passengers desiring to make the transfer. Gillett v. T. M. E. R. Sc L. Co.
et al, 1907, 1 R. C. 689, 711.
Utility cars.
49. Utility cars should be operated in such a manner as to interfere
least with the transportation of passengers and with the comfort of
people living near lines over which cars are being operated. City of Mil-
waukee V. T. M. E. R. Sc L. Co., 1907, 1 R. C. 662, 683.
Elimination of noise at curves.
50. It is recommended that the gauge in the curve be broadened and
the outer rail elevated, but if it is found that greasing alone will eliminate
the noise, no structural change will be necessary. Respondent is ordered
to take such steps as may be essential to eliminate the objectionable noises.
Robh et al. v. Green Bay Traction Co., 1912, 8 R. C. 688.
RATES.
See Rates — Street Railway.
VALUATION.
See Valuation.
STREET SPRINKLING RATES.
See Rates— Water, 89-90.
STREETS.
Value claimed for easements over private right of way which subsequently
became public streets, see Valuation, 97.
442 Stub Track
STUB TRACK.
See Switch Connections.
SUBSCRIBERS.
Classification of telephone subscribers into business and residence sub-
scribers, permissible, see Rates — ^Telephone, 4.
Number of subscribers on line limited, see Telephone Utilities, 47.
SUBWAYS.
For separation of grades at railroad crossing, see Railroads, 53.
SUGAR BEETS.
Reasonableness of rates on sugar beets, see Rates — Railroad, 289.
Time allowed for unloading, free time allowance, modification under
statute, see Demurrage Rules, 2.
SUGAR BEET PULP.
Reasonableness of rates on sugar beet pulp, see Rates — Railroad, 289.
SUMMER COTTAGE SERVICE.
Extra charges for temporary telephone service, see Rates — Telephone,
70.
SUNDAY EXCURSION TRAIN.
See Train Service, 17, 29.
SUNDAY TRAINS.
See Train Service, 28-30.
SUPERINTENDENCE.
Wages of management and superintendence as element in profits, see
Return, 43-46.
Cost of superintendence as element in the valuation of public utilities,
see Valuation, 112.
SURPLUS.
Rate of return on investments in a public or quasi-public enterprise
desirability of margin between gross revenues and the aggregate of
operating expenses and fixed charges, see Return, 8.
Switch Connections. — Character of 443
Maintenance of adequate surplus.
1. It is important to the public that the railroad company be enabled
at all times to maintain an adequate surplus in reserve, for out of this
must usually come the cost of improving the service, increasing the
efficiency of the road, and meeting emergencies. (M. St. P. & S. S. M.
R. Co. V. Railroad Commission, 1908, 136 Wis. 146, 167, 168.) Hawes
V. C. M. <Sc St. P. R. Co., 1911, 6 R. C. 565, 568.
SWITCH CONNECTIONS.
I. CHARACTER OF SWITCH CONNECTIONS.
II. ESTABLISHMENT OF SWITCH CONNECTIONS.
III. RIGHT OF SHIPPER TO SWITCH CONNECTIONS.
IV. RIGHT OF SHIPPER TO SWITCHING SERVICE.
I. CHARACTER OF SWITCH CONNECTIONS.
Definition of "spur track."
1. "Spur track" or "spur" has a definite meaning in the art of rail-
roading. According to Camp, an authority on such terms, "by the
term 'Spur' or 'Stub track' is usually meant a sidetrack which is con-
nected to another track with only one switch." According to none of the
authorities on railroad nomenclature is a "spur track" or "sidetrack"
necessarily connected with a main line. Eden Independent Lime &
Stone Co. v. C. & N. W. R. Co., 1910, 4 R. C. 788, 797-798.
Distinction between industry track and team track.
2. The industry track is one built for the special benefit of some
particular industry or industries and on which cars are handled for the
particular industries for which the track was built. Sometimes such
tracks are built by the railway company entirely, sometimes by the
shipper, and sometimes both take a hand and share the expense. No
general rule seems to have been followed. The parties probably made
the best trades they could. The team tracks, on the contrary, are put
in for the benefit of the general public and are invariably put in at the
expense of the carrier. On such a track any person desiring to do so
may load and unload freight. Clark v. C. M. cfc St. P. R. Co., 1907,
1 R. C. 590, 591-592.
Industrial tracks constructed and operated under contracts.
3. Many, if not most, industrial tracks have been laid down and are
operated under express contracts entered into by the owners of industries
with the railway companies, and the character of such tracks and the
purposes to which they may be devoted are referable to the terms of such
contracts. (Maginnis v. Knickerbocker Ice Co., 1901, 112 Wis. 385.)
Hickerson Roller Mill Co. v. N. P. R. Co., 1910, 4 R. C. 395, 401; Eden
Independent Lime cfc Stone Co. v. C. & N. W. R. Co., 1910, 4 R. C. 788,
794.
444 Switch Connections. — Character of
Private industrial tracks.
4. In the original order of the Commission (4 R. C. 233 as
modified in 4 R. C. 788 and 5 R. G. 110), subsequently vacated by
the supreme court (144 Wis. 523), the Commission acted on the
basis that private tracks laid upon the premises of a private company
for the convenient operation of its industries do not form a part of the
railway company's system. If we are in error in this and the Commission
has authority to thus extend private tracks constructed upon the premises
of industries for the purpose of conveniently handling the in and out
traffic of such industries, it is important that the matter be not left in
doubt. From the language of the court it would seem that such authority
exists, but as we are unable to find that the attention of the court was
directed to the question here suggested, we hesitate to accept the con-
clusions reached as final, and trust, if the matter should again reach the
supreme court for decision, that the question may be positively deter-
mined. Eden Independent Lime & Stone Co. v. C. & N. W. R. Co., 1911,
7 R. C. 140, 147.
Spur track constructed as integral part of rai)road system.
5. Section 1831a of the Wisconsin Statutes of 1898 authorizes
railway companies to construct spur tracks to industries and to exercise
the power of eminent domain when necessary to acquire the right of way
for such tracks. A track constructed under the provisions of this statute
becomes an integral part of the railway system and must be operated for
the benefit of the public or any individual requiring the services of the same,
although constructed primarily to serve a single industry. (C. cfc N. W. R.
Co. V. Morehouse, 1901, 112 Wis. 1.) Rib River Land Co. v. Up ham Manufac-
turing Co. et at., 1907, 1 R. C. 739; Hickerson Rotter Mitt Co. v. N. P. R.
Co., 1910, 4 R. C. 395, 400; Eden Independent Linie & Stone Co. v. C. Sc
N. W. R. Co., 1910, 4 R. C. 788, 793.
6. When there is no private contractual limitation upon the use of
the spur track by the railway company constructing it, the same becomes
a part of its railway system and must be maintained and operated accord-
ingly for the benefit of any and all persons who may require the services
thereof. Hickerson Rotter Mitt Co. v. N. P. R. Co., 1910, 4 R. C. 395, 401 ;
Eden Independent Lime Sc Stone Co. v. C. &. N. W. R. Co., 1910, 4 R. C.
788, 794.
Spur track constructed by owner of industry — Compulsory con-
nection with railroad.
7. Section 1802 of the Wisconsin Statutes of 1898 enables the owner
of any industry situated within the yard limits of any station or terminus
to construct his own track from such industry to the railroad and connect
therewith within such limits. The maintenance and operation of the
track, for the benefit of the owner, is imposed upon the railway company,
but the cost of such maintenance and operation must be borne by the
owner. {Barttett v. C. & N. W. R. Co., 1897, 96 Wis. 335.) Hickerson
Rotter Mitt Co. v. N. P. R. Co., 1910, 4 R. C. 395, 400-401; Eden Inde-
pendent Lime <Sc Stone Co. v. C. & N. W. R. Co., 1910, 4 R. C. 788, 794.
Switch Connections. — Establishment of 445
II. ESTABLISHMENT OF SWITCH CONNECTIONS.
Spur track, construction of — Compulsory connection with rail-
road.
8. Prior to the enactment of sec. 1797-1 1/n of the Wisconsin Statutes,
only owners of industries, located within the yard limits of any station,
could construct lines leading from such industries to the tracks of the
railway and connect them theriewith within such limits. (Sec. 1802,
Wis. Stats, of 1898.) Eden Independent Lime & Stone Co. v. C. & N. W.
R. Co., 1910, 4 R. C. 788, 796.
9. The safety of operation of the road was the reason that compulsory
switch connections with tracks, at the instance of private parties (Wis.
Stats., 1898, sec. 1802), were confined to the yard limits of stations,
because in such places there are usually sidetracks with which such
connections may be made without cutting into the main line, and further-
more the switches are at such points within the observation of the station
employes, and their condition is at all times subject to inspection, and,
in the case of neglect by train crews to properly throw them after use, or,
in case of being tampered with by others, the matter may be remedied
and accidents avoided. Eden Independent Lime & Stone Co. v. C. Sc
N. W. R. Co., 1910, 4 R. C. 788, 796.
Connection of proposed spur with existing spur track.
10. The contention that no order can be made requiring the railway
company to connect the proposed spur with any track other than the main
line, or to extend the existing spur, is based upon the theory that the
statute (Wis. Stats., sec. 1 797-1 Im) contemplates only branches connected
with the main line. If this contention should prevail, the result would
be to defeat, in a great measure, the purpose of the act and to create evils
greater than those the statute was designed to remedy. Eden Independent
Lime Sc Stone Co. u. C. & N. W. R. Co., 1910, 4 R. C. 788, 795, 797-798.
Division of cost among parties.
11. Subdivision 2 of sec. 1797-1 1/n of the Wisconsin Statutes requires
the party or parties primarily to be served by a proposed spur track to
pay for the right of way and construction, and specifies the conditions
and manner of payment. Eden Independent Lime Sc Stone Co. v. C. Sc
N. W. R. Co., 1910, 4 R. C. 788, 795-796.
12. Subdivision 3 of sec. 1797-1 Im of the Wisconsin Statutes ex-
pressly provides that when an industrial spur is to be connected with a
spur from the main line, constructed under the provisions of the statute
here involved, contribution must be made by the party proposing to make
the connection to the party who paid for the primary spur to the main
line. Eden Independent Lime & Stone Co. v. C. & N. W. R. Co., 1910,
4 R. C. 788, 798.
Over city streets and other public places — Power of cities to
prescribe terms.
13. Spur tracks may not be constructed across or upon any street,
lane or alley within the corporate limits of any city without the consent
446 Switch Connections. — Establishment of
of the proper authorities of such city, who may prescribe terms and con-
ditions for the construction of such tracks. (Wis. Stats., sec. 1802 and
sec. 1831a.) Lang et at. v. City of La Crosse et al., 1909, 3 R. C. 292, 296.
Spur track, construction of — Statutory requirements relating to.
14. Section 1802, Statutes of 1898, as amended by ch. 386, laws of
1905, makes it obligatory for railway companies to make connections
within terminal or yard limits. The statute is mandatory in its terms,
and if the point in question is within yard limits, it is the absolute duty
of the railway company to grant the petitioner's request regardless of the
physical conditions. If it is not, then the railway company may refuse
to make the connection whether hardship ensues or not, and whether
its motives are good or bad. It can stand on its legal rights without
apology and without explanation. Osceola Mill & Elev. Co. v. M. St.
P. & S. S. M. R. Co., 1906, 1 R. C. 166, 168.
15. The requirements of the statute governing the establishment of
a spur track are (1) that the spur track in question must not exceed two
miles in length; (2) that it must not be unusually unsafe and dangerous;
(3) that it must be "practically indispensable" to the operation of the
industry or enterprise in interest. Jefferson Ice Co. v. C. & N. W. R. Co.,
1908, 2 R. C. 431, 443-448; Hurst v. N. P. R. Co., 1909, 3 R. C. 283, 286;
Eden Independent Lime Sc Stone Co. v. C. & N. W. R. Co., 1910, 4 R. C.
788, 795-796; Dwight Equity Produce Co. v. M. St. P. & S. S. M. R. Co.,
1911, 6 R. C. 501, 503.
16. Under ch. 481, laws of 1909, and ch. 193, laws of 1911, it is pro-
vided that "Every railroad shall acquire the necessary rights of way for,
and shall construct, connect, maintain and operate a reasonably adequate
and suitable spur track whenever such spur track does not necessarily
exceed three miles in length, is practically indispensable to the success-
ful operation of any existing or proposed mill, elevator, storehouse,
warehouse, dock, wharf, pier, manufacturing establishment, lumberyard,
coal dock, or other industry or enterprise, and its construction and opera-
tion is not unusually unsafe and dangerous, and is not unreasonably
harmful to public interest." Theresa Mill & Supply Co. v. M. St. P. &
S. S. M. R. Co., 1912, 11 R. C. 73, 75; Judd & Judd et al. v. C. <Sc N. W.
R. Co., 1912, 11 R. C. 175, 179; Doyle v. M. St. P. Sc S. S. M. R. Co.,
1914, 13 R. C. 620, 622.
17. Under the requirements of the statute the Commission cannot
characterize a spur track as indispensable on the strength of prospects of
future business — purely speculative in character, nor can costs to the
petitioner alone determine indispensableness. It would be against public
policy to allow any industry or enterprise to locate at any place whatsoever,
without using any foresight as to its future necessities, and then permit
such industry or enterprise to show that a spur track is indispensable
to its successful conduct, when its own lack of foresight or ordinary good
judgment creates 'the necessity or desirability of a spur track. Necessity
created through error or bad judgment, costlj'^ and distressing though it be,
is not the kind of necessity contemplated in the law. Hurst v. N. P. R.
Co., 1909, 3 R. C. 283, 287.
Switch Connections. — Right of shipper to 447
18. In deciding whether a proposed spur track is practically indis-
pensable to the successful operation of a public utility the mere physical
possibility of operating the plant without the use of the spur cannot be
taken as conclusive of the question but consideration must be given to
the needs of the plant when operated with efTicient and economical
equipment which it is the duty of the public utility under the law (Berend
V. Wis. Tel. Co. J 1909, 4 R. G. 155) to install and maintain. Madison G.
& El. Co. V. C. & N. W. R. Co., 1913, 13 R. C. 409, 415-416.
19. The contention of the respondent that having once provided
the petitioner with track facilities adequate to the then existing needs of
the plant the respondent cannot be required either to change the existing
tracks or to install additional tracks to meet new requirements of the
industry, is not tenable for such a construction of the statute would
defeat the purpose of the statute. Madison G. cfc El. Co. v. C. <Sc N. W. R.
Co., 1913, 13 R. C. 409, 413-414.
III. RIGHT OF SHIPPER TO SWITCH CONNECTIONS.
Spur track — Construction of.
20. Railroad ordered to construct spur track. Osceola Mill <Sc Elev.
Co. V. M. St. P. & S. S. M. R. Co., 1906, 1 R. C. 204; Grossman v. C. M. &
St. P. R. Co., 1906, 1 R. C. 254; Osceola Mill & Elev. Co. v. M. St. P. &
S. S. M. R. Co., 1907, 1 R. C. 608; Northern Hardwood Lbr. Co. v. N. P.
R. Co., 1907, 2 R. C. 37; Homstad v. C. M. cfc St. P. R. Co., 1907, 2 R. C.
66; Brink v. C. B. cfc Q. R. Co., 1907, 2 R. C. 79; Jefferson Ice Co. v. C. &
N. W. R. Co., 1908, 2 R. C. 431; Eden Independent Lime Sc Stone Co. v.
C. & N. W. R. Co., 1909, 4 R. C. 233; Clear Ice Co. v. C. Sc N. W. R. Co.,
1910, 4 R. C. 426; Eden Independent Lime Sc Stone Co. v. C. Sc N. W. R. Co.,
1910, 4 R. C. 788; 5 R. C. 110; 727; Dwight Equity Produce Co. v. M. St.
P. Sc S. S. M. R. Co., 1911, 6 R. C. 501; Phelps v. C. M. cfc St. P. R. Co.,
1911, 6 R. C. 556; Vaudreuil Realty Co. v. C. St. P. M. S: 0. R. Co., 1911,
6 R. C. 661; Eden Independent Lime Sc Stone Co. v. C. Sc N. W. R. Co.,
1911, 7 R. C. 140; Oconto Brewing Co. v. C. M. Sc St. P. R. Co., 1911,
8 R. C. 67; Thome v. C. M. Sc St. P. R. Co., 1912, 9 R. C. 156; Savage et at.
V. C. M. Sc St. P. R. Co., 1912, 10 R. C. 442; Theresa Mill cfc Supply Co.
V. M. St. P. Sc S. S. M. R. Co., 1912, 11 R. C. 73; Madison G. Sc El. Co. v.
C. Sc N. W. R. Co., 1913, 13 R. C. 409; Weeks Lbr. Co. v. C. Sc N. W. R.
Co., 1914, 14 R. C. 114.
21. Petition for construction of spur track dismissed. Guildner v.
C. M. Sc St. P. R. Co., 1906, 1 R. C. 102; Osceola Mill Sc Elev. Co. v.
M. St. P. Sc S. S. M. R. Co., 1906, 1 R. C. 166; Corey v. M. St. P. Sc
S. S. M. R. Co., 1906, 1 R. C. 191; Thomas v. C. Sc N. W. R. Co., 1907,
1 R. C. 716; Hurst v. N. P. R. Co., 1909, 3 R. C. 283; Moe Sc Millerman
V. M. St. P. Sc S. S. M. R. Co., 1909, 4 R. C. 117; Knutsen v. C. Sc N. W.
R. Co., 1914, 13 R. C. 615; Doyle v. M. St. P. Sc S. S. M. R. Co., 1914,
13 R. C. 620; Osceola Mill <fc Elev. Co. v. M. St. P. Sc S. S. M. R. Co.,
1914, 15 R. C. 416.
448 Switch Connections. — Right of shipper to switch, serv.
Spur track — Protection of.
22. The installation of the signal proposed by respondent is not
justified in the present case. While automatic protection of switches is
desirable as a general practice, to be effective, such installations should be
uniform, in order that enginemen may be assisted in making quick
decisions. Middleton Sand & Concrete Co. v. C. M. & St. P. R. Co.,
1914, 15 R. G. 306.
Restoration of.
23. Railroad ordered to restore spur track. Smith v. C. B. & Q. R.
Co., 1909, 3 R. C. 356; Jacobson v. C. Sz N. W. R. Co., 1910, 5 R. G. 295.
"Spotting" of cars on public streets.
24. Question of spotting of freight cars on public street passed upon.
Farmers' Store Co. v. C. St. P. M. & 0. R. Co., 1908, 3 R. G. 42; Madison
G. Sc El. Co. v. C. Sc N. W. R. Co., 1913, 13 R. G. 409.
Track connection.
25. Track connection ordered by Gommission. West Salem Canning
Co. et al. V. C. M. Sc St. P. R. Co. et at., 1914, 15 R. G. 254; Gratiot et al. v.
I. C. R. Co. et al., 1914, 15 R. G. 421.
26. Petition for track connection dismissed. National Mfg. Co. v.
I. C. R. Co. et al., 1912, 9 R. G. 509.
IV. RIGHT OF SHIPPER TO SWITGHING SERVIGE.
Duty of common carriers to interchange traffic.
27. Under the provisions of sec. 1797-11 (eh. 362, laws of 1905) as
amended, it is the duty of a common carrier to receive a carload shipment
from a competing carrier and switch the same to a convenient point on
the team track of the receiving carrier for a reasonable compensation, at
least in the absence of any showing that such action would materially
interfere with the business of the receiving carrier. Clark v. C. M. Sc
St. P. R. Co., 1907, 1 R. G. 590; 733; Teasdale v. C. Sc N. W. R. Co. et al.,
1912, 9 R. G. 66.
Use of belt line as industrial or team track.
28. The track located on River street in front of the warehouse or
coal shed of the petitioners, and which has been used by them for the
unloading of freight, does not appear to be either a team track or a private
sidetrack, but rather a sort of a belt line over which such tracks are
served. In view of these and other facts and of the conditions generally
which apply in this case, it appears to us that under the laws of this state
the respondent cannot be required to permanently permit said belt line
to be used as an ordinary team or sidetrack. Plowright Sc Menzies v.
C. Sc N. W. R. Co., 1908, 2 R. G. 553, 572.
SWITCHING CHARGES.
See Ratfs — Railroad; Rates — ^Telephone; Terminal Gharges.
Taxation 449
SWITCHING SERVICE.
See Railroads; Switch Connections; Telephone Utilities;
Transportation.
TANBARK.
Reasonableness of rates on tanbark, see Rates-;-Railroad, 290.
TANK HEATERS.
Mixture privilege with agricultural implements, see Rates^ — Railroad,
200.
TAP LINE.
Allowance or division of joint rate to tap line, an unjust discrimination,
see Rates — Railroad, 70.
TAPPING OF MAINS.
Charge for tapping water mains, see Rates — Water, 91.
TARIFFS.
See Schedules or Tariffs.
Legality of ante-dated tariff, see Rates — Railroad, L
TAXABLE VALUE.
Taxable value as matter considered in the valuation of public utilities, see
Valuation, 123.
TAXATION.
Franchise values, appraisal for taxation and for rate-making purposes,
see Franchises, 10.
Taxable property, as fund available for just compensation upon municipal
acquisition of public utility, see Eminent Domain, 1.
Relation between the assessed valuation and the net earnings of
public utilities.
1. Public utilities, like other property, are supposed to be taxed upon
their earning or market value. This assessment is made annually. The
market value depends very largely upon the net earnings of an enterprise,
and the net earnings, in turn, to a considerable extent rest upon the rates
charged per unit for the services rendered. When the rates are increased,
there is apt to be increase in the net earnings and in the market or assessed
valuation. When the rates are reduced, the net earnings, together with
the values named, are also apt to be reduced. There is thus a rather
15
450 Taxation
close relation between the assessed valuation and the rates. If utilities
are permitted to charge high rates and thereby increase their net earnings
or market value, it would seem to be only fair that they should also be
required to pay taxes on the higher valuation. On the other hand, if the
rates and the net earnings and market value are reduced, corresponding
reductions should also be made in the assessed valuation. This is pre-
cisely what takes place. The assessments for taxation are changing with
the net earnings or with market values. This practice would seem to be
fair and to be in line with public policy. Hill et al. v. Antigo Water Co.,
1909, 3 R. C. 623, 728.
TAXES.
Apportionment of taxes in the determination of unit costs for electric
utilities, see Accounting, 27.
for gas utilities, see Accounting, 43.
for heating utilities, see Accounting, 66.
for interurban railways, see Accounting, 72.
for railroads, see Accounting, 129.
for telephone utilities, see Accounting, 165.
for water utilities, see Accounting, 179.
As element considered in making rates for electric utilities, see Rates —
Electric, 37-40.
for gas utilities, see Rates — Gas, 8.
for railroads, see Rates — Railroad, 130.
for water utilities, see Rates — Water* 35, 48.
Elimination of taxes as element in making rates for municipal utilities,
discrimination in favor of consumers as against taxpayers, see
Discrimination, 45.
TEAM TRACKS.
See Switch Connections.
TELEGRAPH COMPANIES.
OPERATION.
REQUIREMENTS AS TO SERVICE AND FACILITIES.
Adequacy of service.
1. Investigation was prompted by petitions and complaints relating to
telegraphic service. The enforcement of ch. 575, laws of 1907, resulted in
the closing of a large number of telegraph stations, due, in part at least,
to the re-distribution of the railway telegraph operators, only a limited
number of which were available. The railway companies now employ
many more operators and pay a larger total of operators' salaries. Gh.
575 has also accelerated the substitution of the telephone for the telegraph
in train operation. The contracts between the railway and telegraph
companies make the latter responsible for commercial messages. A
general order cannot well be made in that inadequacy of service is a
matter' of fact and law which must be determined in each case by itself.
In re Invest, of Telegraph Service, 1908, 2 R. C. 263.
Telephone Utilities 451
TELEGRAPH SERVICE.
Telegraph companies rather than railroad companies are responsible for
the telegraph service in Wisconsin, see Railroads, 95.
TELEPHONE DIRECTORIES.
Advertisements in telephone directories, right of telephone company to
insert advertisements in directories as collateral undertaking not
affecting prejudicially the reasonable performance of its duties
to the public, see Telephone Utilities, 1.
Charge for extra listing in telephone directory, see Rates — Telephone,
20.
TELEPHONE EXCHANGE.
Establishment of checking station, see Telephone Utilities, 5.
Relocation of telephone exchange a matter to be determined by the
utility, so long as no unreasonable expenditures will result from
the change, see Telephone Utilities, 29.
TELEPHONE FACILITIES.
Duty of railroad company as to telephone facilities in stations, see Rail-
roads, 97.
TELEPHONE RATES.
See Rates — Telephone.
TELEPHONE UTILITIES.
Contracts for telephone service and facilities, see Contracts, 2, 4-7.
Cost of service of telephone utilities, determination of unit costs, see
Accounting, 151-173.
Depreciation, rate of depreciation of telephone plant, see Depreciation,
41-44.
Discrimination as between telephone subscribers, see Discrimination,
86-104. .
Exchange radius, determination of exchange radius for telephone utility,
see Rates — Telephone, 16.
Franchise, municipality has no power to grant franchise to telephone
company, see Franchises, 15.
Franchise value, does not attach to the business of telephone companies
in Wisconsin, see Valuation, 36.
Installation of telephone in railroad station, see Railroads, 97-98;
Station Facilities, 32-35.
Rebates or concessions, allowance to subscriber of telephone utility on
account of ownership of instrument of facility, rate concession
prohibited, see Rebates or Concessions, 2-3,
Rules and regulations as to payment of rates, see Rules and Regulations,
7-29.
Schedules of rates and charges, see Schedules for Utilities, 2-8.
452 Telephone Utilities. — Accounting
ACCOUNTING.
See Accounting, 3-4, 151-173.
I. CONTROL AND REGULATION IN GENERAL.
II. ESTABLISHMENT, CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE.
a. Checking station. e. Pa> station.s.
b. Construction of lines. f. Telephone exchanges.
c. Extension of lines. g. Through lines.
d. Franchises or privileges.
III. OPERATION.
a. Bridged telephone service. d. Requirements as to service and
b. Physical connection. facilities.
c. Private branch exchange. e. Standards of service.
IV. RIGHT OF WAY AND OTHER INTEREST IN LAND.
V. TELEPHONE COMPANIES.
I. CONTROL AND REGULATION IN GENERAL.
Collateral undertaking when not affecting prejudicially the reason-
able performance of its duties to the public.
1. Any undertaking or practice collateral to the public calling of a
public utility, which does not in itself impair the ability of the utility to
fully perform its public functions in every respect, is not within the con-
templation of the regulative powers of the Commission. It is only when
the public is prejudiced in the matter of rates, services or facilities by any
such act, practice or collateral undertaking of a public utility that the
Commission may step in and exercise its supervisory power to the end
that such prejudice be removed. Fond du Lac Business Men's Assn. et al.
V. Wis. Tel. Co., 1909, 4 R. C. 340, 349.
Ordinance requiring removal of telephone poles from street.
2. Under the ordinance the complainant would be obliged either to
violate its duty to the public by interrupting the service or submit to a
cumulative penalty during the period required for performing the work
beyond the time limit allowed. Held: That such legislation is not a
proper exercise of the police power delegated to a municipality and such
ordinance is null and void. Wis. Tel. Co. v. City of Green Bay, 1908.
3 R. C. 147, 162-163.
Power of municipality to regulate location of poles within the
streets or other public places.
3. All legislative grants to private corporations to occupy streets
with electrical appliances are impliedly, if not expressly, subject to the
police power of the municipality, both to dictate and to change the
location of such plants. {Monongahela v. Monongahela El. Lt. Co., 1892,
4 Am. El. Cas. 53.) Wis. Tel. Co. v. City of La Crosse, 1911, 7 R. C. 435,
445.
Telephone Utilities. — Establishm., consfr. and mainlen. 453
4. A city may not enforce an ordinance peremptorily directing a
telephone company to relocate its poles in an impracticable manner,
after the poles have been located and allowed, when it is neither averred
nor shown that the existing location incommodes the public, nor that
there was any good reason for the removal of the poles. {Hannibal v.
Mo. <Sc K. Tel Co., 1888, 31 Mo. App. 23.) Wis. Tel. Co. v. City of La
Crosse, 1911, 7 R. G. 435, 446.
II. ESTABLISHMENT, CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE.
a. CHECKING STATION.
EslabJishmcnt of.
5. Petition for establishment of checking station dismissed. In re
Appl. Western Crawford Co. Farmers Mut. Tel. Co., 1914, 14 R. C. 568.
b. CONSTRUCTION OF LINES.
Public convenience and necessity of construction in particular
cases.
6. Public convenience and necessity do not require the proposed
construction. In re Appl. Sevastopol Farmers Tel. Co., 1914, 14 R. C.
524.
7. The construction, in the manner proposed by the applicants, of
the line in question for telephwie service, is required by public convenience
and necessity. In re Constr. of a Tel. Line in Town of Addison, Wash. Co.,
1914, 14 R. C. 766.
c. EXTENSION OF LINES.
Advance of cost by subscribers.
8. The telephone company may reasonably be expected to put in
the extension if nine new subscribers can be obtained or if any number less
than nine desiring service will advance to the company the amount by
which the cost of the extension exceeds the amount upon which the
revenues from the business acquired will yield a reasonable return, such
advances to be paid if new subscribers are obtained within a reasonable
time. In re Extension Larsen Tel. Co., 1913, 13 R. G. 363.
Application of Ch. 610, Laws of 1913 (sec. 1797 ni— 71) to extensions
begun before the law became effective.
9. A telephone company which had its poles hauled and ready to set
for an extension of its line prior to the date on which ch. 610, laws of 1913,
became effective is not prevented by this law from completing the con-
struction of the line as marked out by the placing of the poles, for the
legislature cannot be presumed to have intended the law to affect exten-
sions already made or those in process of construction. Earl Tel. Co. v.
Trego Tel. Co., 1914, 14 R. C. 457.
Authority for extension derived from the state and not from the
municipality.
10. The contention of the respondent that it is entitled to enter the
village and compete with the petitioner by virtue of a franchise granted
454 Telephone Utilities. — Establi^hm., constr. and mainten.
by the village is untenable, for the authority to operate a telephone
utility is, under the statutes, derived from the state and not from any
local branch of the government. {State ex ret. Smythe v. Milwaukee Ind.
Tel. Co., 133 Wis. 588.) Tri-State Tel. & Teleg. Co. v. St. Croix F. M.
Tel. Co., 1913, 13 R. G. 437.
c. EXTENSION OF LINES. — Continued
Authority from Coniiiiission necessary.
11. Under sec. 1797/n-74 of the Statutes it is made unlawful for any
telephone company to extend its service into a territory already occupied
by another company without bringing the matter before, and obtaining
authority of the Commission. Tri-State Tel. & Teleg. Co. v. St^ Croix
F. M. Tel. Co., 1913, 13 R. C. 437, 439.
Conversion of toll station into a rural station.
12. Public convenience and necessity would be subserved by allowing
the Wis. Tel. Go. to maintain a local service station in Eagle Point and
such finding under all the circumstances of the present case is not incon-
sistent with the Anti-duplication Law. The decision is not a precedent,
however, for future cases where it may be desired to convert a toll line
into a local line. Should other cases of such a nature arise, they will be
dealt with on their individual merits. In re Wis. Tel. Co. Toll Station
at Eagle Point, 1914, 15 R. G. 454.
Discrimination between stockholders and nonstockholders pro-
hibited.
13. The fact that the persons to whom the respondent desires to
extend its service are shareholders, is immaterial, for service must be
rendered to shareholders upon the same terms and conditions as to other
subscribers. Tri-State Tel. Sc Teleg. Co. v. St. Croix F. M. Tel. Co.,
1913, 13 R. G. 437, 439.
Duplication of equipment of established utility.
14. The fact that the paralleling of lines proposed would be only a
quarter of a mile long does not make such paralleling any less a violation
of the statutes. This situation has arisen several times before the Com-
mission, and permission to parallel has uniformly been refused. In re
Proposed Extension Ettrick Tel. Co., 1913, 12 R. G. 744; In re Proposed
Extension Clinton Tel. Co., 1913, 13 R. G. 166; In re Proposed Extension
West Kewaunee <Sc Western Tel. Co., 1914, 14 R. G. 219; In re Alleged
Violation of Chapter 610 of the Laws of 1913 by the Lisbon Tel. Co., 1914,
14 R. G. 131; In re Proposed Extension Wis. Tel. Co., 1914, 14 R. C.
396, 398.
15. While the Anti-duplication Act does not intend that the presence
of the line of a telephone company upon a highway shall preclude all other
companies from approaching that highway, it does intend that where a
prospective subscriber to telephone service is situated in close proximity
to an existing line from which he can receive service fairly suited to his
needs at a reasonable charge, he shall be regarded as legitimately a
prospective customer of the existing line. A more liberal construction of
the law would open the way to that unnecessary competition which it
Telephone Utilities. — Establishm., constr. and mainten. 455
is the obvious purpose of the law to prevent. In re Extension Pewaukee-
Sussex Tel. Co., 1914, 15 R. C. 57, 58-59.
16. While the duplication of service rather than the actual paralleling
of lines is the thing principally to be avoided in the construction of new
telephone lines, the extension of a paralleling line from which no service is
permitted to be given to the persons living along it is likely to lead to
friction and dissatisfaction, and the actual incumbering of the highway
and the close proximity of the wires are also likely to be unsatisfactory.
In re Proposed Extension Wis. Tel. Co. in Town of Anson, 1914, 14 R. C.
510. 515-517.
Not ordinarily the remedy for excessive rates or inadequate
service.
.17. If the rates charged by a telephone utility are excessive or if the
service is inadequate the remedy is to make complaint to the Commission
in the regular way rather than to invite a duplication of telephone systems.
In re Proposed Extension Ettrick Tel. Co., 1913, 12 R. C. 744; In re Proposed
Extension Clinton Tel. Co., 1913, 13 R. C. 166; Eagle Tel. Co. v. State
Long Distance Tel. Co. et al., 1914, 13 R. C. 597; In re Proposed Extension
Fond du Lac Rural Tel. Co., 1914, 13 R. C. 676; In re Alleged Violation
of Law by Lisbon Tel. Co., 1914, 14 R. C. 131; In re Proposed Extension
West Kewaunee cfc W. Tel. Co., 1914, 14 R. C. 219; In re Proposed Extension
Mattoon Tel. Co., 1914, 14 R. C. 329; In re Proposed Extension Wis. Tel.
Co., 1914, 14 R. C. 396; In re Invest. People's Tel. Co. et al. at Fall River,
1914, 14 R. C. 793; In re Proposed Extension Grange Hall Farmers Tel. Co.y
1914, 15 R. C. 11; In re Proposed Extension Oak Ridge Tel. Co., 1914,
15 R. C. 166.
Extension contrary to law.
18. The evidence does not indicate any willful violation of the law,
but rather a failure to comprehend its requirements. Had the East
Valley Tel. Co. notified the Commission in the regular way of its proposed
extension, and had the same facts been placed before the Commission as
those considered in the present case, it would have been impossible to
find that public convenience and necessity did not require the extension.
Under the circumstances, the Commission will take no action looking
toward the withdrawal of the East Valley Tel. Co. from the territory in
which the new extension was built. In re Proposed Extension East Valley
Tel. Co., 1914, 14 R. C. 802.
19. The respondent's action in -extending its service without pre-
viously obtaining authority from the Commission, as required by sec.
1797/n-74 of the statutes, was illegal. Tri-State Tel. cfc Teleg. Co. v.
St. Croix F. M. Tel. Co., 1913, 13 R. C. 437; In re Alleged Violation of
Law by Lisbon Tel. Co., 1914, 14 R. C. 131; In re Extension Cornell
Tel. Co., 1914, 14 R. C. 814; In re Extension Grange Hall Farmers' Tel. Co.,
1914, 15 R. C. 11.
Legality of extension in municipality in which there is already in
operation a public utility engaged in similar service.
20. The Bergen Telephone Company has maintained direct connec-
tion with three private telephones installed within the village of Clinton
456 Telephone Utilities. — Estahlishm., constr. and mainten.
which is the district served by the CUnton Telephone Company. The
facts in this matter were presented by the Commission to the attorney-
general and the latter rendered an opinion under date of February 27,
1913, to the effect that the Bergen Telephone Company was maintaining
the service mentioned in violation of sec. 1797m-74 of the Public Utilities
Law and that the company was therefore subject to the penalty imposed
by sec. 1797/r?-95 of the same law. The fact that the number of sub-
scribers given direct service is small and the further fact that some or
all of these subscribers have furnished their own equipment are immaterial.
The practice in question is clearly illegal and must be discontinued. No
order of the Commission is necessary in the matter. In re Physical
Conn. Betw. Clinton & Bergen Tel Cos., 1913, 13 R. C. 249, 257-258.
c. EXTENSION OF LINES. — Continued
Legality of extension in municipality in which there is already in
operation a public utility engaged in similar service.
21. It appeared that prior to July 11, 1913, the date on which ch.
610, laws of 1913, amending sec. 1797/n-74 of the statutes, under which
this proceeding arises, went into effect, the company was giving certain
service in the village of Holcombe and that prior to the hearing the
extensions here involved were made under the misapprehension that
the village was incorporated. It did not appear that the demand, which
the new service satisfied, could pot have been met by the Chippewa
County Tel. Co., whose lines the extensions in question paralleled.
Respondent ordered to permanently discontinue all local service given
from such of its lines as were constructed in the town of Holcombe since
July 11, 1913. In re Extension Cornell Tel. Co., 1914, 14 R. C. 814.
Proposed extension permitted by law unless Commission finds that
public convenience and necessity do not require the exten-
sion.
22. The only action required of this Commission by the law in cases
involving the duplication of telephone lines within the same territory
by the extension of new lines, is a finding that public convenience and
necessity do not require the proposed extension. Where the Commission
does not make such a finding, the statute itself operates to authorize
the extension. In re Proposed Extension Owen Tel. Co., 1914, 13 R. G.
630, 631; In re Proposed Extension Wis. Tel. Co., 1914, 14 R. C. 441, 443;
In re Proposed Extension Wis. Tel. Co. in Town of Anson, 1914, 14 R. C.
510, 515-517; In re Proposed Extension East Valley Tel. Co., 1914, 14 R. C.
802, 803-804.
Public convenience and necessity of extension in particular cases.
23. The question of public convenience and necessity of extensions
was passed upon in the following cases: In re Proposed Extension Ettrick
Tel. Co., 1913, 12 R. C. 744; In re Proposed Extension Clinton Tel. Co.'s
Lines, 1913, 13 R. C. 166; Eagle Tel. Co. v. State Long Distance Tel. Co.
ei al., 1914, 13 R. C. 597; In re Proposed Extension Owen Tel. Co., 1914, 13
R. C. 630; In re Proposed Extension Fond du Lac Rural Tel. Co., 1914,
13 R. C. 676; In re Alleged Violation of Law by Lisbon Tel. Co., 1914,
14 R. C. 131; In re Proposed Extension of West Kewaunee <& W. Tel. Co.,
Telephone Utilities. — Establishm., constr. and mainten. 457
1914, 14 R. C. 219; In re Proposed Extension Mattoon Tel. Co., 1914,
14 R. C. 329; In re Proposed Extension Wis. Tel. Co., 1914, 14 R. G. 396;
In re Proposed Extension Maijville Rural Tel. Co., 1914, 14 R. C. 402;
In re Proposed Extension Wis. Tel. Co., 1914, 14 R. C. 441; In re Proposed
Extension Wis. Tel. Co. in Town of Anson, 1914, 14 R. C. 510; In re
Proposed Extension of the Random Lake Tel. Co., 1914, 14 R. C. 757;
In re Proposed Extension East Valley Tel. Co., 1914, 14 R. C. 802; In re
Extension Pewaukee- Sussex Tel. Co., 1914, 15 R. C. 57;. /n re Proposed
Extension Oak Ridge Tel. Co., 1914, 15 R. G. 166; In re Extension of St.
Croix Tel. Co., 1914, 15 R. G. 241.
Service in territory eqviidistant from lines of two companies —
Which company shall serve.
24. When there is a question as to which of two telephone companies
shall be allowed to serve a given territory which is about equidistant from
the lines of both companies and which is entirely new to both companies,
so that neither will have to have its existing investment in any way
impaired by the extension of the other, consideration may well be given to
some matters that might be extraneous to the issue if an actual dupli-
cation of lines were contemplated. Among these are the preponderance
of the subscribers of one company in the territory in question, the number
and local importance of the points that can be reached without the use of
toll lines, the relative length of time the two companies have been operating
in the surrounding territory, and the business and social habits and needs
of the individuals who are to use the new service. The greater diligence of
one company in securing subscribers may also be taken into account in
some cases. In re Proposed Extension Wis. Tel. Co. in Town of Anson,
1914, 14 R. G. 510, 515.
Statutory requirements.
25. It is the express intent of ch. 610 of the laws of 1913 to eliminate
the waste of unwarranted competition, and the Gommission has repeatedly
refused to countenance the extension of lines where adequate service can
be rendered by the company already in the field. In re Invest. People's
Tel. Co. et al. at Fall River, 1914, 14 R. G. 793, 795.
d. FRANCHISES OR PRIVILEGES.
Acquisition of.
26. Under the decisions of the supreme court of this state no local
franchise is required by a telephone company and none could, therefore,
lawfully be granted by the local authorities. Payne et al. v. Wis. Tel. Co.,
1909, 4 R. G. 1, 60; Tri-State Tel. & Teleg. Co. v. St. Croix F. M. Tel. Co.,
1913, 13 R. G. 437.
e. PAY STATIONS.
Abolishment of. '
27. Either all the business houses should have pay station service or
it should be abolished altogether. The cost of instaUing the additional
stations would exceed the cost of another trunk line to La Grosse. Troubles
usually encountered with nickel phones tend to condemn their use in a
small town, and their aboUtion in the present case would effect economies.
Coady et al. v. La Crosse Tel. Co., 1915, 15 R. G. 831.
458 Telephone Utilities. — Establishm., constr. and mainten.
f. TELEPHONE EXCHANGES.
Public convenience and necessity of additional exchange.
28. The applicant has no right to increase the number of its telephones
in the city of Prairie du Chien except upon a showing that public con-
venience and necessity require another telephone exchange within the city
for the purpose of rendering local service. Citizens Tel. Co. of Eau Claire
V. Railroad Comm. of Wis., 1914, 146 N. W. 798. Public convenience and
necessity do not require an additional telephone exchange within the city
of Prairie du Chien. In re Appl. Western Crawford Co. Farmers' Mut.
Tel. Co., 1914, 14 R. G. 568.
Relocation of.
29. The relocation of a telephone exchange is primarily a function of
the company if such relocation will not involve the company in un-
reasonable expenditure for construction or operation. Purves et al. v.
Friendship Tel. Co., 1914, 15 R. C. 530.
g. THROUGH LINES.
Construction of.
30. Construction of through lines ordered. Fesenfeld & Barber
et al. V Mazomanie Tel. Co. et al., 1909, 3" R. C. 514; Johnson et al. v
Lodi Tel. Exch., 1913, 11 R. C. 713.
III. OPERATION.
a. BRIDGED TELEPHONE SERVICE.
Rates for bridged telephone service, see Rates — Telephone, 62.
b. PHYSICAL CONNECTION.
Establishment of — Conditions precedent.
31. Before the duty of making a physical connection of telephone
lines under the statute is imposed upon telephone utilities and can be
enforced in any case, it must appear: (1) that the connection is required
by public convenience and necessity; (2) that it will not result in irreparable
injury to the owner or other users of the facilities of such public utilities;
and (3) that no substantial detriment to the service will result therefrom.
Unless these conditions exist simultaneously, the utilities are free to make
or to refuse to make connection of their lines, as their action in the matter
in such event lies entirely within their discretion. Winter v. La Crosse
Tel. Co. et al., 1913, 11 R. C. 748, 755; McGowan v. Rock County Tel. Co.
et al, 1914, 14 R. C. 529, 537; State Aid Highway Comm. v. Wis. Tel. Co.
et al., 1914, 15 R. C. 244; Arena & Ridgeway Tel. Co. v. Mazomanie Tel.
Co., 1914, 15 R. C. 390, 392-394.
Statutory requirements.
32. Where physical connection of lines is enforced under the statute,
it is contemplated that the companies shall agree upon the apportionment
Telephone Utilities. — Operation 459
of the joint tolls, and it is only in case of failure of agreement that the
Commission has authority to make the apportionment. Ettrick Tel. Co.
V. La Crosse Tel. Co., 1913, 13 R. C. 25, 27.
33. No telephone company can insist that a connecting telephone
company furnish its toll line facilities free of charge, for that would be
clearly taking property without compensation and would meet the con-
demnation of constitutional provisions. In compelling physical con-
nection between two telephone systems, it must be remembered that the
statute provides for reasonable terms and conditions. It could not legally
provide that one company should give another the use of its toll lines
without compensation. Ettrick Tel. Co. v. La Crosse Tel. Co., 1913,
13 R. C. 25, 28.
34. Section 1797/7Z-4 of the Statutes imposes upon the Commission
the power and duty of requiring physical connection. Hawkins Creek
Tel. Co. et al. v. Badger Tel Co., 1914, 14 R. C. 655, 661-664.
35. Section 1797/n-4 of the Statutes states definitely under what
circumstances physical connection shall be made. These are (I ) whenever
public convenience and necessity require such physical connection, and
(2) such physical connection will not result in- irreparable injury to the
owners or other users of the facilities, nor (3) in any substantial detriment
to the service. Belmont S: Pleasant View Tel. Co. et al. v. W. O. Tel. Co.,
1914, 15 R. C. 92, 102.
— — Constitutionality.
36. There is nothing in the letter or in the spirit of the law that
savors of confiscation, and if administered according to its obvious intent
and purpose, no property rights will be impaired and no injury inflicted
upon anyone. Winter v. La Crosse Tel. Co. et al., 1913, 11 R. C. 748, 756;
McGowan v. Rock County Tel. Co. et al, 1914, 14 R. C. 529, 531-533.
With respect to public convenience and necessity.
37. The term "public convenience and necessity" is indeterminate.
It is usually found in statutes requiring some act to be performed or
creating sonie new public obligation not imposed by the common law
w:hich interferes with private rights. As a justification for such inter-
ference there must be a public exigency demanding it, which is always a
question of fact depending upon a variety of considerations. Winter v.
La Crosse Tel. Co. et al, 1913, 11 R. C. 748, 756; McGowan v. Rock County
Tel Co. et al, 1914, 14 R. C. 529, 537.
Establishment of in particular cases.
38. Physical connection of telephone systems ordered. In re Appl
Linzy-Brook Tel Assn., 1912, 9 R. C. 189; In re Physical Connection
between Clinton & Bergen Tel Cos., 1912, 10 R. C. 598; Winter v. La Crosse
Tel. Co. et al, 1913, 11 R. C. 748; Ettrick Tel. Co. v. La Crosse Tel. Co., 1913,
12 R. C. 68; Curtiss cfc Withee Tel. Co. v. Owen Tel Co., 1914, 13 R. C.
538; Johnson et al. v. Readfield Tel. Co. et al, 1914, 14 R. C. 102; McGowan
V. Rock County Tel Co. et al, 1914, 14 R. C. 529; Hawkins Creek Tel Co.
et al. V. Badger Tel. Co., 1914, 14 R. C. 655; Winter v. La Crosse Tel. Co.
et al, 1914, 15 R. C. 36; Belmont & Pleasant View Tel. Co. et al v. W. O.
460 Telephone Utilities. — Operation
Tel. Co., 1914, 15 R. C. 92; McGowan v. Rock County Tel. Co. et al., 1914,
15 R. C. 378.
b. PHYSICAL CONNECTION. — Continued
Establishment of in particular cases.
39. Petition for physical connection dismissed. New Lisbon Mut.
Tel. Co. V. Mansion El. Sew. Co., 1913, 12 R. C. 213; Eagle Tel. Co. v.
State Long Distance Tel. Co. et al., 1914, 13 R. C. 597; Belmont & Pleasant
View Tel. Co. et al. v. W. 0. Tel. Co., 1914, 15 R. C. 92; Diamond Grove
Tel. Co. V. Mineral Ft. Tel. Co., 1914, 15 R. C. 185; State Aid Highwaij
Comm. V. Wis. Tel. Co. et al., 1914, 15 R. C. 244; Farmers' Union Tel.
Co. V. Mt. Vernon Tel. Co., 1914, 15 R. C. 286; Arena <Sc Ridgeway Tel.
Co. V. Mazomanie Tel. Co., 1914, 15 R. C. 390.
Right to refuse connection with grounded lines.
40. The proposed regulation that the Mineral Pt. Tel. Co. will not
extend its switching service to other rural lines unless the lines are full
metallic and with not more than ten parties on a line appears to be no
more than a reasonable requirement in the interests of good service.
Applicant is authorized to refuse connection to its switchboard to rural
lines not now connected, except upon compliance with this regulation.
In re Appl. Mineral Ft. Tel. Co., 1912, 9 R. C. 285, 302-304.
Terms and conditions of joint use.
41. Terms and conditions for use of physical connection established.
In re Physical Connection Bergen Tel. Co. & Clinton Tel. Co., 1912, 10
R. C. 598; Boscobel Tel. Co. v. W. Crawford Co. F.M. Tel. Co., 1912,
11 R. C. 32; Union Tel. Co. v. W. Crawford Co. F. M. Tel. Co. et at.,
1912, 11 R. C. 42; In re Clinton Tel. Co. and Bergen Tel. Co., 1913, 13
R. C. 249; Johnson et al. v. Readfield Tel. Co. et al., 1914, 14 R. G. 102;
Curiiss <Sc Withee Tel. Co. v. Owen Tel. Co., 1914, 14 R. C. 419; McGowan v.
Rock Co. Tel. Co. et al, 1914, 14 R. G. 529; Hawkins Creek Tel. Co. et al. v.
Badger Tel. Co., 1914, 14 R. G. 655; Winter v. LaCrosse Tel. Co. et al.,
1914, 15 R. G. 36; In re Appl. New Union Tel. Co., 1914, 15 R. G. 60;
In re Toll Rates, Markesan to Kingston, 1914, 15 R. G. 288; McGowan v.
Rock Co. Tel. Co. et al., 1914, 15 R. G. 378.
c. PRIVATE BRANCH EXCHANGE.
An extension of public telephone system,
42. The private branch exchange system within the hotels is but an
extension of the telephone company's system as far as the former is used
to furnish telephone service to the public in connection with the latter.
In such connection the stations in the rooms of the hotels are as much pay
stations as those located in the company's booths in the hotel lobbies.
National Travelers' Assn. of Amer. v. Wis. Tel. Co., 1910, 5 R. G. 678, 690.
d. REQUIREMENTS AS TO SERVICE AND FACILITIES.
Adequacy of service — In general.
43. Question of adequacy of service in general passed upon. In re
Badger Tel. Co., 1908, 3 R. G. 98; Lorenz et al. v. Wis. Tel. Co., 1908,
3 R. G. 186; In re Appl. Interurban Tel. Co., 1911, 6 R. G. 647; In re Appl.
Telephone Utilities. — Operation 461
People's Tel. Co., 1911, 8 R. C. 92; Juneau El. Co. v. New Lisbon Tel. Co.,
1911, 8 R. C. 399; Hoffman et al. v. Wausau Tel. Co., 1913, 11 R. C. 480;
Johnson et al. v. Lodi Tel. Exch., 1913, 11 R. C. 713; Union Tel. Co. v.
Western Crawford Co. F. M. Tel. Co. et al, 1913, 12 R. C. 140; In reinvest.
Elderon Tel. Co., 1913, 13 R. C. 23; In re Physical Conn, between Clinton
& Bergen Tel. Cos., 1913, 13 R. C. 249; In re Appl. Farmers' Tel. Co. of
Beetown, 1914, 13 R. C. 540; Eagle Tel. Co. v. State Long Distance Co. et al.,
1914, 13 R. C. 597; In re Appl. Troy & Honey Creek Tel. Co., 1914, 14
R. C. 157; In re Appl. Badger State Tel. & Teleg. Co., 1914, 14 R. C. 407;
In re Invest. People's Tel. Co. et al. at Fall River, 1914, 14 R. C. 793;
In re Invest. Service Nebagamon Tel. Co., 1914, 15 R. C. 50; Purtell et al. v.
Hubertus Tel. Co., 1914, 15 R. G. 152; In re Invest. Service Door County
Tel. Co. et al., 1914, 15 R. G. 375, 377; In re Appl. Marion Sc Northern
Tel. Co., 1914, 15 R. G. 552; Pospichal et al. v. Muscoda Mutual Tel. Co.,
1915, 15 R. G. 578; Grantman et al. v. Theresa Union Tel. Co.', 1915, 15
R. G. 582; In re Appl. Clark County Tel. Co. to Increase Rates, 1915,
15 R. G. 822.
Extension of service.
44. The fact that the extensions in question would probably decrease
the number of toll calls made from Mikana is not entitled to consideration,
since respondent can not limit the local service in order to increase the
revenue derived from toll service. Respondent ordered to extend its
rural telephone service from its exchange at Rice Lake to all persons
living within a reasonable distance of its toll line, and south of a line one
mile north of its existing toll station, and who demand such service.
Brooks et al. v. Barron County Tel. Co., 1914, 15 R. G. 499.
* Interference of high voltage transmission lines.
45. For the reasons stated in the case of Ebenezer Tel. Co. v. Milwaukee
Lt. Ht. Sc T. Co., 1915, 15 R. G. 619, the Commission is without juris-
diction. Platteville, etc. Tel. Co. et al. v. Lancaster El. Lt. Co., 1915,
15 R. G. 622.
Night service.
46. Respondent ordered to provide regular switchboard service for
all its lines between the hours of 5 a. m. and 10 p. m. and handle calls of
an urgent nature at all other times from any of its lines, or connecting
lines, subject to rules to be submitted to the Commission for approval.
W. R. Howard <Sc Sons et al. v. Greenwood Tel. Co., 1915, 15 R. G. 323.
Number of telephones per line.
47. Telephone company ordered to limit number of telephones on
rural lines. In re Badger Tel. Co., 1908, 3 R. G. 98; Arena <Sc Ridg'y Tel.
Co. V. Troy & Honey Creek Tel. Co. et al., 1914, 13 R. G. 763; Hawkins
Creek Tel. Co. et al. v. Badger Tel. Co., 1914, 14 R. G. 655; In re Invest.
Service Door County Tel. Co. et al., 1914, 15 R. G. 375; Pospichal et al. v.
Muscoda Mutual Tel. Co., 1915, 15 R. G. 578.
Relocation of the exchange.
48. It is practicable to render adequate service from an exchange
located in either Adams or Friendship and the choice of either location
462 Telephone Utilities. — Operation
will not involve the utility in unreasonable expenditure for construction
or operation. The choice between the two locations is therefore the
function of the utility and not of the Commission. Purves et al. v.
Friendship Tel. Co., 1914, 15 R. C. 530.
d. REQUIREMENT AS TO SERVICE AND FACILITIES. — Continued
Adequacy of service — Service in railroad stations.
See Station Facilities, 32-35.
"Silent number" telephones.
49. The maintenance of silent number service cannot be regarded as
an unjust discrimination on the part of the telephone company and there
is no other ground upon which the practice can be condemned. It is
true that there is an element of discrimination in the action of the indi-
vidual who has the silent number service in giving his number to his
friends or acquaintances and withholding it from the general public,
but this is a matter which is left to the discretion of the individual.
In re Use of Silent Numbers by Wis. Tel. Co., 1914, 13 R. C. 587.
Statutory requirements.
50. The law requires the service of telephone utilities to be reasonably
adequate. Lorenz et al. v. Wis. Tel. Co., 1908, 3 R. C. 186, 262; Berend
V. Wis. Tel. Co., 1909, 4 R. C. 150, 155; Connor et al. v. Marsh et al.,
1911, 6 R. C. 589; In re Appl. Interurban Tel. Co., 1911, 6 R. C. 647;
Hoffman et al. v. Wausau Tel. Co., 1913, 11 R. G. 480.
51. Sec. 1791a of the Statutes, which makes it the duty of every
telephone company to connect the telephone of any subscriber, upon
request of that subscriber, with the telephone of any other subscriber,
without regard to the character of the messages to be transmitted, pro-
vided they are not obscene or profane, is in conflict with the Public
Utilities Law, which was enacted subsequently, and must therefore be
regarded as having been repealed by the latter which merely provides
that "every public utility is required to furnish reasonably adequate
service and facilities." Sec. 1797/n-3. In re Use of Silent Numbers by
Wis. Tel. Co., 1914, 13 R. C. 587, 592.
, Switching service.
52. The respondent would be within its rights in treating this
application for service as the application of an entirely new rural line
and insisting that the requirements for a full metallic line with a limited
number of subscribers and other requirements set forth in the order cited
above, be met by the petitioner's line before service is furnished. Diamond
Grove Tel. Co. v. Mineral Pt. Tel. Co., 1914, 15 R. C. 185.
Through line.
53. Construction of through line ordered. Fesenfeld & Barber et al.
V. Mazomanie Tel. Co. et al., 1909, 3 R. G. 514; 4 R. G. Ill; Coady et al. v.
La Crosse Tel. Co., 1915, 15 R. G. 831; Grantman et al. v. Theresa Union
Tel. Co., 1915, 15 R. G. 582.
Telephone Utilities. — Operation 463
Uniform service, rates, rules, etc.
54. Although in certain cases the Commission has estabhshed uniform
rates and practices for utiUties operating in the same city, thereby pre-
venting rate wars with their wasteful duplication and almost inevitable
consolidation, it does not appear,' under the circumstances of the present
case, that there should be an order fixing uniform rates, rules, regulations
and service among telephone utilities operating in LaFayette county, or
placing the rates in Darlington, of the Darlington Farmers' exchange and
the LaFayette County Tel. Co. upon the same basis. Belmont & Pleasant
View Tel. Co. et at. v. W. 0. Tel. Co., 1914, 15 R. C. 92.
Purchase or lease of instruments.
55. The purchase or lease of instruments by public utilities is neces-
sitated by sec. 1797/n-90 of the Public Utilities Law. In re Badger Tel.
Co., 1908, 3 R. C. 98, 103; In re Appl. Farmers' Tel. Co. of Beetown, 1914,
13 R. C. 540, 580.
Urban subscribers on rural lines.
56. The practice followed generally by telephone companies in
Wisconsin in refusing to place village subscribers on rural lines is, in most
instances, in the interest of good service. In re Appl. Farmers' Tel. Co.
ofBeetown, 1914, 13 R. C. 540, 575-576.
Withdra^val of service.
57. Past misconduct of a subscriber will not justify the refusal of
future service to him unless it has been habitual or so frequent and under
such circumstances that his assurance of reformation cannot be reasonably
relied upon as sincere. In re Invest. Pulaski Merchants' & Farmers' Tel.
Co., 1912, 10 R. C. 558.
58. The regulation of the company prohibiting subscribers on party
lines from "listening in" except to ascertain whether the line is open or
busy is reasonable. However, while persistent and gross infractions of
telephone utility rules might warrant a permanent exclusion from the use
of the utility service, the "listening in" and remarks following were not
of a character, in the present case, to warrant depriving the subscriber of
te'ephone service indefinitely. In re Refusal Oconto Rural Tel. Co. to Ex-
tend Service, 1914, 15 R. C. 277.
59. Though the te'ephone company was justified in discontinuing
service to the subscriber upon his refusal to pay his bill in full, the company
is not justified by the existence of his previous indebtedness, in refusing
to give him present service if he is ready and willing to give the company
reasonable security for the payment of future bills. The company is
ordered to restore its telephone service to Mr. Lemcke upon the tender
by him of payment in advance for a reasonable period at the rates now
charged, or the deposit by him with the company of a sufiicient sum of
money to secure the prompt payment of rentals which may become
due in the future for services rendered in accordance with such rules and
regulations as the company may publish and file with the Commission.
Ten days is deemed a reasonable time for the formulation of such rules
464 ■ Telephone Utilities. — Operation
and their submission to the Commission. In re Refusal Farmers* Union
Tel. Co. to Furnish Service, 1913, 13 R. C. 399, 402/
d. REQUIREMENT AS TO SERVICE AND FACILITIES. — Continued
Withdrawal of service.
60. Complaint that the Wausau Tel. Co. has put its subscribers to
trouble and inconvenience by shutting off its patrons without notice
even when all bills for service were paid. Held: If this condition exists,
it constitutes inexcusable negligence on the part of the telephone utility.
The respondent is ordered to keep a record in convenient form which will
show the status of the financial relations existing between the respondent
and each of its subscribers, and no subscriber shall be cut off for non-
payment of bills except after reasonable notice. Hoffman et al. u. Wausau
Tel. Co., 1913, 11 R. C. 480.
e. STANDARDS OF SERVICE.
Establishment of.
61. The Public Utilities Law requires all public utilities to furnish
adequate service and empowers the Railroad Commission to formulate
standards of adequate service. BeHeving that the establishment of
standards for telephone service would be of material aid in bettering
such service throughout the state, an investigation of the matter was
instituted by the Commission and standards were established. In re
Invest. Standards for Tel. Service in Wisconsin, 1914, 15 R. G. 1.
RATES.
See Rates — ^Telephone.
IV. RIGHT OF WAY AND OTHER INTERESTS IN LAND.
Rights in and use of highways and public places.
62. The rights obtained by pubhc service corporations to occupy
the streets and alleys of the city merely confer rights as against the public.
Abutting property owners must be compensated for the additional
' burden upon the fee caused by the location of the telephone and electric
. poles within streets and alleys. In the present case property holders are
not complaining, and, if they have not been compensated for the location
of the poles in question, their rights in the premises have been barred
by the statute of Umitations, sec. 1778/i. Burns v. La Crosse G. Sz El.
Co. et al., 1911, 6 R. G. 195, 197-198.
V. TELEPHONE COMPANIES.
Assumption of Public Utilities Law that telephone companies are
subject to ordinary laws of competition.
63. The Pubhc Utilities Law excepts telephone companies from those
of its provisions which protect existing plants from excessive or unfair
competition. It is well understood that the theory of the law is, that
utility enterprises are generally monopolistic in their character. This
theory was not extended to include telephone companies. These alone
are left in a class by themselves, supposed to be governed by the ordinary
laws of competition. Payne et al. v. Wis. Tel. Co., 1909, 4 R. C. 1, 60.
Terminal Facilities 465
Capital stock — Requirement as to ownership of stock by sub-
scribers.
64. The requirement that all subscribers must own a share of stock
in the company is of doubtful legality, but it is not considered necessary
at the present time to pass upon the matter. In re AppL Morris Tel. Co.,
1911, 7 R. C. 426, 427.
Franchises and powers — Usurpation of franchise or exercise of
unauthorized pow^ers a grievance against sovereignty.
65. The usurpation of a franchise or the exercise of unauthorized
powers by a corporation is a grievance against sovereignty which the
state alone can redress in a proper action instituted in the courts for that
purpose, and is not a matter upon which a private party can predicate
a right in any action or proceeding against the corporation. Such wrongs
are not subjects that can be thus inquired into collaterally for the purpose
of righting them. {Farwell Co. v. Wolf et al., 1897, 96 Wis. 10; Hubbard
V. Haley et a/., 1897, 96 Wis. 578, 587; Bergeron v. Hobbs et al., 1897,
96 Wis. 647; Zinc Carbonate Co. v. First National Bank of Shullsburg,
1899, 103 Wis. 125, 131; Attorney-General ex rel. Askew v. Smith et al.,
1901, 109 Wis. 532, 541; Security National Bank of Sioux City, Iowa, u.
St. Croix Power Co., 1903, 117 Wis. 211, 217.) Fond du Lac Business
Men's Assn. et al. u. \V[s. Tel. Co., 1909, 4 R. C. 340, 348-349.
VALUATION.
See Valuation.
TELL TALES.
Rules relating to erection and maintenance of tell tales, see Railroads, 62.
TEMPORARY SERVICE.
Extra charges for temporary service, see Rates — Electric, 88; Rates —
Telephone, 70-71.
TERMINAL CHARGES.
See Demurrage Charges; Switching Charges.
TERMINAL EXPENSES.
Apportionment of operating expenses between terminal and movement
expenses in the determination of unit costs: ■
for interurban railways, see Accounting, 77.
for railroads, see Accounting, 130.
As element considered in making express rates, see Rates — Express, 3.
railroad rates, see Rates — Railroad, 131-134.
TERMINAL FACILITIES.
See Station Facilities; Switch Connections.
466 Theatrical Cars
THEATRICAL CARS.
Refusal of railroad company to carry a private theatrical car, see Train
Service, 19.
THERMOSTATS.
Thermostats to be furnished at cost to consumers, see Heating Utili-
ties, 4.
THROUGH LINES.
See Connecting Carriers.
Construction of through telephone lines ordered, see Telephone Utili-
ties, 30.
THROUGH FREIGHT LINE.
Petition for a sidetrack on a line devoted to through freight business,
dismissed. Thomas v. C. Sc N. W. R. Co., 1907, 1 R. C. 716.
THROUGH RATES..
Joint or through rates, see Rates — Railroad, 63-102.
TICKETS.
Facilities for purchasing commutation tickets, see Street Railways, 35.
Interurban railways, sale of reduced rate tickets on cars, see Interurban
Railways, 13.
Issuance of street railway tickets including skating privileges an unjust
discrimination, see Discrimination, 64.
SPECIAL CLASSES OF TICKETS.
Commutation tickets — Carrier not compelled to issue.
1. In view of the holding of the United States supreme court, in the
case of the Lake Shore cfc Michigan Southern R. Co. v. Smith, 1898, 173
U. S. 684, the Commission cannot in any instance require the sale of
tickets at less than the maximum rate fixed by statute. Lieberman v.
C. M. <Sc St. P. R. Co., 1909, 3 R. C. 330, 334-335.
Conditions under which issued.
2. They are usually issued to persons residing in suburban places,
whose employment is in cities, and who are, therefore, required to travel
regularly between their homes and places of employment, and also to
school children living in territories adjoining towns and cities where
high schools and colleges are maintained, whose advantages could not be
enjoyed by such children except for the reduced rates for travel at which
such tickets are sold. Lieberman v. C. M. Sc St. P. R. Co., 1909, 3 R. C.
330, 332.
Tobacco 467
Definition of.
3. A commutation ticket has been defined as one issued at reduced
rates, authorizing the holder to travel for a given number of times or a
given length of time, or both, between given points, upon the road issuing
them. (Harper, Law of Interstate Commerce, 191.) Lieberman v.
C. M. & St. P. R. Co., 1909, 3 R. G. 330, 332.
Purpose of carrier in issuing.
4. The commutation ticket was placed on sale largely to relieve the
crowding and congestion of population in the large cities. Suburban
residents were thus enabled to enjoy the comforts that space and fresh
air afford and to avoid the crowded tenement house. The business is
frequently carried on on trains used exclusively for that purpose, and the
large number of passengers carried enables the carriers to conduct the
business at a rate that would be unprofitable, if not ruinous, were it
generally applied. In time the interurban lines will i>o doubt control
most of the traffic, but until they do, it is in the interest of public health
and morals that this class of traffic should be encouraged, at least so long
as it is not a burden on other travelers. The wholesale principle, too,
enters into the considerations which lead to the sale of such tickets, as
they are good for a specified number of rides between given points and the
time within" which they can be used is limited. Buell v. C. M. Sc St. P.
R. Co., 1907, 1 R. C.'502; Lieberman v. C. M. & St. P. R. Co., 1909,
3 R. C. 330, 332.
Right of carrier to prescribe conditions of sale.
5. Ordinarily, the price of commutation tickets, the conditions upon
which they are sold, and the distance from a given city to which com-
mutation rates shall be extended, are matters within the discretion of the
carrier. (Spring et al. v. B. & 0. R. Co. et al., 1900, 8 I. C. C. R. 443.)
Lieberman v. C. M. & St. P. R. Co., 1909, 3 R. C. 330, 332.
TILE.
Establishment of joint rates on tile, see Rates — Railroad, 75.
Reasonableness of rates on tile, see Rates — Railroad, 212.
TILE AND BRICK.
Establishment of joint rates on tile and brick, see Rates — Railroad, 75.
Reasonableness of rates on tile and brick, see Rates — Railroad, 212.
TOBACCO.
Establishment of concentration rates on tobacco, see Rates — Railroad,
38.
Reasonableness of rates on tobacco, see Rates — Railroad, 293.
468 Toilet Facilities
TOILET FACILITIES.
Installation of modern sanitary toilet facilities in station, see Station
Facilities, 36.
TOLL BRIDGE RATES.
See Rates — Toll Bridge.
TOLL BRIDGES.
Rate of depreciation of toll bridge, see Depreciation, 45.
TOLL DROPS.
Rates for telephone toll drops, see Rates — Telephone, 74.
TOLL RATES.
See Rates — Telephone, 1^-11.
TOLL STATION.
Toll station changed into a rural station, see Telephone Utilities, 12.
TON-MILE.
When improper basis for rates.
1. Average rate per ton-mile for entire railway system not considered
fair basis for making rates for sugar beets. Chippewa Sugar Co. et al. v.
C. M. <k St. P. R. Co., 1906, 1 R. C. 258.
TON-MILE COSTS.
Ton-mile costs less for long hauls than for short hauls, see Rates —
Railroads, 137.
TON-MILE RATE.
Differences in ton-mile rates in various group or blanket rates, see Rates
— Railroad, 53.
TOWNS.
See also Municipalities.
Town board, authority over highway and railroad crossing, town super-
visors the judges under the statute of the necessity for a highway,
see Railroads, 7.
consent of, necessary for abandonment of street railway track
constructed under franchise granted by such board, see Street
Railways, 9.
Traffic Diversity Factor 469
Town board, petition of, for alteration in crossing of a highway by a
railroad, see Railroads, 3-6.
petition of, or niember of town board, as condition precedent to
jurisdiction of Commission over crossing of railroad by
highway, see Railroad Commission, 77.
proceedings of, in laying out highways for railroad crossing, validity
of proceedings, question for courts, see Railroad Commission,
75.
request for track connections within town, village or city, see Switch
Connections, 13.
TRACK CONNECTIONS.
See Connecting Carriers; Street Railways; Switch Connections.
TRACK DEPRESSION.
Track depression ordered to eliminate dangerous grade crossings in
Milwaukee, see Railroads, 54.
TRACK ELEVATION.
Track elevation ordered to eliminate dangerous grade crossings in Mil-
waukee, see Railroads, 54.
TRACKS.
Right of common carriers to designate purpose for which their tracks shall
be used, see Railroads, 101.
TRAFFIC.
Interchange of, see Connecting Carriers; Railroads; Switch Con-
nections; Train Service. >
TRAFFIC CONDITIONS.
As a factor in fixing minimum weights, see Weights, 9.
As element considered in making railroad rates, see Rates — Railroad,
156-158.
rates for street railways, see Rates — Street Railway, 11-12.
rates for telephone utilities, see Rates — Telephone, 35-36.
As matter considered in determining reasonableness of railroad rates, see
Rates — Railroad, 196.
TRAFFIC DIVERSITY FACTOR.
Traffic diversity factor as matter considered in determining adequacy of
service for street railways, see Street Railways, 28.
470 Traffic Officers
TRAFFIC OFFICERS.
Traffic officers to improve service of street railways, see Street Railways,
47.
TRAIN CONNECTIONS.
See Train Service, 8, 14.
TRAIN MILEAGE.
Revenue train mileage as basis for apportionment of operating expenses
of railroad between intrastate and interstate traffic, see Accounting
132.
TRAIN SCHEDULES.
See also Train Service.
Car schedules for street railways, see Street Railways, 43-44.
Adjustment of train schedules to assure connections between branch
and main line, see Train Service, 14-16.
Adjustment of train schedules between connecting carriers to provide
for interchange of traffic, see Train Service, 8.
Adjustment of train schedules.
1. Train schedules should be so arranged as to afford the best accom-
modations to the greater number of people. Jones v. C. M. <Sc St. P. R. Co.,
1907, 1 R. C. 615.
2. In determining a question as to the adjustment of train schedules
not only must the numbers in each case be considered, but the extent of
the inconvenience which would be caused to some must be weighed against
the benefit to be derived by others. In re Invest. Dodgeville Branch of
the I. C. R. Co., 1912, 10 R. C. 572, 578.
3. Train schedules must be arranged for the convenience of the
patrons of the entire line taken as a whole, even though in serving the
larger purpose the schedules work some hardship on a few communities
and individuals. Van Epps v. M. St. P. & S. S. M. R. Co., 1913, 12 R. C.
54, 58; In re C. & N. W. R. Co., 1913, 12 R. G. 74, 81; Hume et at. v. C.
M. cfc 67. P. i?. Co., 1913, 13 R. C. 80, 83.
4. While the financial results of the operation of the line under
consideration do not justify an order requiring the operation of additional
trains, the public is entitled to a certain minimum of service irrespective
of direct financial results. Leonard et al. v. W. C. R. Co., 1907, 1 R. G.
724.
Interference with schedules of interstate trains.
5. The objection that the trains in question are interstate, and
therefore not subject to the jurisdiction of this Gommission, is not tenable.
This question is fully discussed in the case of Farmer v. Duluth S. S. Sc
A. R. Co., 1 R. G. 316; Sager v. C. M. <Sc St. P. R. Co., 1907, 1 R. G. 660,
661.
Train Service 471
6. The Commission has repeatedly held that where the local trafRc is
reasonably adequate under all the circumstances in the case, it will make
no order interfering with the schedule or rate of speed of interstate trains
operated primarily for the benefit of the through traffic. Barber v. C.
St. P. M. & 0. R. Co. et al, 1909, 4 R. G. 238, 242.
Maintenance of published schedule.
7. Trains should be run on some definite schedule. Patrons have a
right to know when they may expect to go and come, barring unusual
contingencies. "Unusual contingencies" are not daily occurrences.
Loijal Business Men's Assn. v. W. C. R. Co., 1907, 1 R. G. 720, 723.
8. Barring circumstances absolutely beyond its control, a railroad
should substantially maintain its published passenger schedule, whether
on branch or main line. Some allowance may be made for a mixed train,
but where it is the only train affording service in a direction and at a time
at which traffic normally moves, as in the present case, the management
should take such measures as may be necessary to maintain the estab-
lished schedule. In re Invest. Dodgevillc Branch of the I. C. R. Co., 1912,
10 R. G. 572, 577.
Making of train schedules.
9. The Commission has on several occasions held that the making
of train schedules, together with the details of operation, are matters
primarily within the judgment and discretion of the railway company.
Only in cases of clear necessity has the Commission intervened in matters
of this kind, and then somewhat reluctantly. It is practically impossible
for the Commission to assume responsibility for the many details con-
nected with the operation of trains. The law, in our judgment, does not
contemplate this and we do not believe that in experience it would prove
to be practicable. Barber v. C. St. P. M. & 0. R. Co. et al, 1909, 4 R. C.
238, 242; Barker v. C. M. Sc St. P. R. Co., 1910, 4 R. C. 751, 755.
Reparation for expenses incurred on account of failure of carrier
to keep schedule for connections.
10. The Commission has no authority under the law to order re-
spondent to make reparation for expenses incurred by failure to make
connections. Burrill v. I. C. R. Co., 1912, 9 R. C. 319.
TRAIN SERVICE.
See also Connecting Carriers; Station Facilities; Switch Con-
nections; Train Schedules; Transit Privileges.
Discrimination in train service, see Discrimination, 49-85.
Interstate trains, jurisdiction of Commission over, see Railroad Com-
mission, 58-60.
Village deprived of train service by change in line, see Railroads, 73.
ADEQUACY OF TRAIN SERVICE.
a. In generaL c. Passenger service.
b. Freight service.
472 Train Service. — Adequacy of
I. ADEQUACY OF TRAIN SERVICE.
a. IN GENERAL.
Branch line service.
1. Every part of a railroad system cannot be expected to be profitable.
There are many short lines acting as feeders to main lines, which could not
be operated independently of the main lines. Therefore, in determining
the reasonableness of any branch line service, the relation of the branch
line to the system as a whole, the needs of the public tributary to the
branch, the character and volume of traffic, both present and prospective,
the cost of operation and its effect upon the revenues of the entire system,
must be considered, and every factor given such weight as in the light of all
the circumstances the situation warrants. Nelson et al. v. N. P. R. Co.,
1912, 8 R. C. 685, 686; Webster v. C. <Sc N. W, R. Co., 1912, 10 R. C. 500,
508; In re Invest. Dodgeville Branch of I. C. R. Co., 1912, 10 R. C. 572, 577,
2. Stations on branch lines cannot, in the very nature of things,
obtain or reasonably demand equal service with stations upon main lines,
though the former station may be more important than the latter;
nevertheless, there is a minimum of service that must be rendered on
every line, less than which would be a breach of public duty on the part
of the carrier. Nelson etal. v. N. P. R. Co., 1912, 8 R. G. 685^ 687.
3. The passenger business on a branch line cannot always be expected
to be entirely self-supporting. Where this business is conducted in
connection with a profitable freight business on the same trains, the
combined earnings must be considered in determining the adequacy of
the service. Werner et al. v. C. M. Sc St. P. R. Co., 1914, 14 R. C. 573.
Comparative conditions.
4. If a railway company furnishes reasonably adequate service to a
community it cannot be required to furnish additional service to that
community merely because it furnishes more than adequate service to
communities of similar or less importance. Anderton et al. v. M. St. P. So
S. S. M. R. Co., 1914, 14 R. C. 247, 250.
Competition between shippers.
5. We do not think it could be successfully maintained that any
service, whether usual or not, could be declared adequate which did not,
for instance, admit of the transportation of certain articles of commerce
in general use upon terms which would enable the manufacturer or shipper
to sell in the markets in competition with others, who, because of their
great capital, were able to supply their own facilities for reaching the
markets, or for other reasons made no use of the equipment of the railway
companies for such purpose. Valvoline Oil Co. v. C. & N. W. R. Co. et al.,
1908, 2 R. C. 232, 246.
Operation of trains.
6. Every railway company is entitled to operate its trains in such a
manner as to compete upon the most favorable terms, consistent with the
test of reasonably adequate service at all points served by it. Tate v.
Train Service. — Adequacy of 473
C. B. & Q. R. Co., 1908, 2 R. C. 348, 354; Village of Maiden Rock v.
C. B. Sz Q. R. Co., 1909, 4 R. C. 311, 316.
Regularity of schedule.
7. One of the prime functions of a common carrier is to transport
passengers and freight with regularity. We do not regard it just to
compel the respondent company to operate all of its trains on a published
train schedule, but we are inclined toward the belief that a fair considera-
tion of the interests of the patrons of the line requires the operation of
some trains oil regular schedules. Streveler v. Marathon County R. Co.,
1907, 1 R. C. 831, 843.
b. FREIGHT SERVICE.
Connections at transfer points.
8. Connections to facilitate movements of freight. Village of Abbots-
ford V. M. St. P. & S. S. M. R. Co., 1911, 6 R. C. 619; Rogers v. C. &
N. W. R. Co. et al., 1912, 9 R. C. 45; In re Train Service Brodhead New
Glarus Branch C. M. & St. P. R. Co., 1912, 9 R. C. 389; John Hoffman &
Sons Co. V. C. M. & St. P. R. Co. et al., 1912, 9 R. C. 530; 1913, 13 R. C. 322.
Milk train.
9. Question of adequacy of facilities for milk shipments passed upon.
Corey v. M. St. P. & S. S. M. R. Co., 1906, 1 R. C. 191; Kuenzli et al. v.
C. M. <Sc St. P. R. Co., 1913, 12 R. C. 690; Milwaukee Milk & C. Shippers
of Calhoun v. C. & N. W. R. Co., 1915, 15 R. C. 638.
Stopping of trains.
10. Stopping of trains ordered to receive and discharge freight.
Pullen V. W. C. R. Co., 1906, 1 R. C. 27; Loehr v. C. M. & St. P. R. Co.
et al., 1906, 1 R. C. 34.
Trainload service.
11. Trainload rates are at best a form of discrimination in favor of
the large shipper and against the small shipper. Heineman Lbr. Co. v.
C. M. <fc St. P. R. Co., 1912, 9 R. C. 281; Connor Lbr. & Land Co. v.
Laona ct N. R. Co. et at., 1913, 12 R. C. 761, 767.
c. PASSENGER SERVICE.
Additional trains.
12. Question of operation of additional trains passed upon. Loyal
Business Men's Assn. v. W. C. R. Co., 1907, 1 R. C. 720; Leonard et al. v.
W. C. R. Co., 1907, 1 R. C. 724; 2 R. C. 1; Birkett v. C. & N. W. R. Co.,
1907, 2 R. C. 61; Streveler v. Marathon County R. Co., 1907, 2 R. C. 78;
Leonard et al. v. W. C. R. Co., 1908, 2 R. C. 355; Village of Curtiss v. M.
St. P. & 5. S. M. i?. Co., 1911, 6 R. C. 655; Nelson et al. v. N. P. R. Co.,
1911, 7 R. C. 764; Donald v. C. & N. W. R. Co., 1911, 8 R. C. 320; Nelson
et al. V. N. P. R. Co., 1912, 8 R. C. 685; Webster v. C. & N. W. R. Co.,
1912, 10 R. C. 500; In re Invest. L. S. Div. of C. & N. W. R. Co., 1912,
10 R. C. 590; Overmeyer et al. v. C. M. <Sc St. P. R. Co., 1913, 11 R. C. 569;
474 Train Service. — Adequacy of
Roethe v. M. P. & N. R. Co., 1913, 11 R. C. 643; In re C. & N. W. Pas-
senger Serv. Janesville-Fond du Lac, 1913, 12 R. C. 74; Hume et al. v.
C. M. & St. P. R, Co., 1913, 13 R. C. 80; Werner et al. u. C. M. & St. P.
R. Co., 1914, 14 R. C. 573; Sieberns et al. v. C. St. P. M. Sz 0. R. Co.,
1914, 14 R. C. 775; Schmitt et al. v. C. & N. W. R. Co., 1915, 15 R. C. 758.
c. PASSENGER SERVICE. — Continued
Adjustment of schedules.
13. Question of adjustment of schedules passed upon. Frost v.
W. C. R. Co., 1907, 2 R. C. 92; Barker v. C. M. & St. P. R. Co., 1910,
4 R. G. 751.
Connections at junction points.
14. The making of proper train connections between trains on the
same railway system as well as between trains on competing railway
systems, at junction points, is in the interest of the general trafTic, a matter
of public convenience and comfort and the performance of a duty which
public carriers owe to the public. Rosen v. C. St. P. M. Sc 0. R. Co. et al.,
1907, 1 R. C. 512, 520.
15. Establishment of connection of passenger trains at junction
points ordered. Rosen v. C. St. P. M. &: 0. R. Co. et al., 1907, 1 R. C.
512; Barber v. C. St. P. M. cfc 0. R. Co. et al., 1909, 4 R. C. 238; Knapp v.
I. C. R. Co. et al., 1910, 5 R. C. 176; Titus v. C. M.& St. P. R. Co., 1911,
6 R. C. 534; Lentz v. C. M. & St. P. R. Co. et al., 1911, 6 R. C. oS\; Rogers
V. C. <Sc N. W. R. Co. et al., 1912, 9 R. C. 45; In re Invest. Dodgeville Branch
of I. C. R. Co., 1912, 10 R. C. 572; Watrud v. I. C. R. Co., 1914, 15 R. C.
449; Nolan et al. v. C. & N. W. R. Co. el al., 1915, 15 R. C. 588.
16. Petition for connection dismissed. Jones v. C. M. Sz St. P. R.
Co., 1907, 1 R. C. 615; Kissinger et al. v. M. St. P. iSc S. S. M. R. Co.,
1914, 13 R. C. 790.
Excursion train.
17. The reason for the absence of jurisdiction of the Commission is
that excursion train service is a special form of service, which the railroad
is not compelled to furnish and which, if it does furnish, is w^holly within
its discretion as to time and extent of service, subject only to the
general police power of the state with respect to public health, safety, or
equal rights. When the respondent operated the train beyond Winne-
bijou, and failed to stop, the Commission's jurisdiction arose in its
authority under the statute to prevent discrimination, but as the re-
spondent now sees fit to furnish the special service only as far as
Lake Nebagamon, the Commission cannot intervene to compel it to be
furnished to more distant stations. Hughson et al. v. D. S. S. & A. R. Co.,
1915, 15 R. C. 599.
Motor car service.
18. Adequacy of motor car service passed upon. Wright v. I. C. R.
Co., 1908, 2 R. C. 279; Godard v. C. St. P. M. & 0. R. Co., 1909, 3 R. C. 578.
Private cars, hauling of.
19. The respondent is not a common carrier of private cars. The
past practice or custom of the respondent of carrying private cars does
Train Service. — Adequacy of 475
not have the force of law, compelling it to do so in the future, which
would, in effect, make it a common carrier of private cars. Hall v.
C. M. & St. P. R. Co., 1906, 1 R. C. 118.
Service of local stations by through interstate trains.
20. Through interstate trains engaged in conveying persons long
distances at a rapid speed in competition with similar trains on other
roads, are not designed to perform local service between stations, and
ought not, in justice to the railway company or to the traveling public,
to be ever required to do so except in case of imperative necessity. Dyer
V. C. M. & St. P.R. Co., 1908, 2 R. C. 621, 626; Village of Maiden Rock v.
C. B. & Q. R. Co., 1909, 4 R. C. 311, 316.
21. Und^r certain circumstances a railroad commission, duly em-
powered by statute, m£iy compel a railway company to stop interstate
trains carrying United States mail. The right to exercise the power
would seem to depend upon a question of fact in every instance, and the
essential fact to be determined is whether or not the locality in question
is adequately served by other trains. Farmer v. D. S. S. & A. R. Co.,
1907, 1 R. C. 316, 321; Schmidt v. G. N. R. Co., 1909, 4 Ti. C. 121, 125.
Shuttle train.
22. The operation of passenger trains through freight terminals and
over lines used exclusively for freight service is unusually hazardous.
While it might be possible that with careful supervision passengers could
be transported to the fair grounds over the proposed route, the danger
would be greater than under usual methods of operation, and the saving
of five minutes or even a half-hour in reaching the fair would not be a suffi-
cient justification for subjecting passengers to unusual danger. Wis.
Si. Brd. of Agriculture v. C. M. & St. P. R. Co., 1914, 15 R. C. 110.
Sleeping car service.
23. To grant the relief sought would necessitate the regulation of
interstate passenger service, which is beyond the jurisdiction of the Com-
mission, except where such regulation is necessary for adequate intrastate
service, which is not the case in the present proceedings. Fond du Lac
Business Men's Assn. v. C. & N. W. R. Co., 1915, 15 R. C. 606.
Stopping of trains.
24. To permit an agent of the company to determine, in his dis-
cretion, the exigency requiring a stop in any particular case, seems
indefensible. The matter should not be left to the judgment of any one
or more persons but should be governed by a regulation of general appli-
cation, otherwise unjust discrimination will of necessity occur. Laun v.
C. M. & St. P. R. Co., 1910, 6 R. C. 5, 11.
25. It would seem clearly within the decisions of the supreme court
of the United States a burden upon interstate commerce and therefore
beyond the jurisdiction of the Commission to compel interstate trains to
stop at stations where the local service is already reasonably adequate and
where the size of such stations does not warrant the stopping of such
trains. Adams et al. v. C. B. & Q. R. Co., 1914, 14 R. C. 506.
476 Train Service. — Adcquaci] of
c. PASSENGER SERVICE.— Continued
Stopping of trains.
26. Petitions for stopping of trains at stations dismissed. Liberty v-
W. C. R. Co., 1906, 1 R. C. 139; McFarland v. C. & N. W. R. Co., 1906,
1 R. C. 248; Farmer v. D. S. S. & A. R. Co., 1907, 1 R. C. 316; Bushnell v.
C. M. & St. P. R. Co., 1907, 1 R. C. 532; Delbridge v. C. M. & St. P. R. Co.,
1907, 2 R. C. 32; Tate v. C. B. cfc Q. R. Co., 1908, 2 R. C. 348; Dyer v. C. M.
& St. P. R. Co., 1908, 2 R. C. 621; Burkholder v. C. B. & Q. R. Co., 1908,
2 R. C. 765; Kemp et al. v. C. B. <Sc Q. R. Co., 1909, 3 R. C. 350; Fordice et al.
V. C. & N. W. R. Co., 1909, 3 R. C. 602; Schmidt v. G. N. R. Co., 1909,
4 R. C. 121; Village of Maiden Rock v. C. B. Sc Q. R. Co., 1909, 4 R. C. 311;
Sparlin v. M. St. P. & S. S. M. R. Co., 1910, 4 R. C. 467; Strasburg u.
C. M. & St. P. R. Co., 1911, 6 R. C. 504; Wilding v. C. St. P. M. & 0. R.
Co., 1912, 9 R. C. 513; Sandquist v. M. St. P. & S. S. M. R. Co., 1912,
10 R. C. 490; Parkhill v. M. St. P. & S. S. M. R. Co., 1912, 11 R. C. 153;
Gilbertson et al. v. C. & N. W. R. Co., 1913, 11 R. C. 604; Laursen et al. v.
M. St. P. & 5. 5. M. R. Co., 1913, 11 R. C. 627; Van Epps v. M. St. P.
& S. S. M. R. Co., 1913, 12 R. C. 54; Thorson v. G. N. R. Co., 1913, 12
R. C. 363; Hayden v. M. St. P. & S. S. M. R. Co., 1913, 13 R. C. 390;
Village of Unity v. M. St. P. Sc S. S. M. R. Co., 1913, 13 R. C. 430; Gan-
tenbein v. C. B. & Q. R. Co., 1914, 13 R. C. 525; Anderton et al. v. M. St.
P. & S. S. M. R. Co., 1914, 14 R. C. 247; Adams et al. v. C. B. & Q. R. Co.,
1914, 14 R. C. 506; Abrams Business Men's Assn. v. C. M. & St. P. R. Co.,
1914, 14 R. C. 780; Senty v. C. St. P. M. & 0. R. Co. et al., 1914, 15 R. G.
155; Hariu v. C. & N. W. R. Co., 1914, 15 R. C. 502.
27. Stopping of trains at stations ordered. Pullen v. W. C. R. Co.,
1906, 1 R. C. 27; Loehr u. C. M. & St. P. R. Co. et al., 1906, 1 R. C. 34;
Pullen V. W. C. R. Co., 1906, 1 R. C. 60; Guildner v. C. M. & St. P. R. Co.,
1906, 1 R. C. 102; Sager v. C. M. & St. P. R. Co., 1907, 1 R. C. 660;
Dennis v. K. G. B. & W. R. Co., 1908, 3 R. C. 115; Olson et al. v. S. M. &
P. R. Co. et al., 1909, 3 R. C. 262; Laun v. C. M. & St. P. R. Co., 1910,
6 R. C. 5; Schlosstein v. C. B. Sc Q. R. Co., 1911, 8 R. G. 242; City of
Menomonie v. C. St. P. M. Sc 0. R. Co., 1912, 10 R. G. 478; Travelers'
Prot. Assn. of America v. C. Sc N. W. R. Co., 1913, 11 R. G. 333; Feuling
V. G. B. Sc W. R. Co., 1913, 12 R. G. 116; Travelers' Prot. Assn. of America
V. C. Sc N. W. R. Co., 1913, 12 R. G. 439; Anderton et al. v. M. St. P. Sc
S. S. M. R. Co., 1913, 12 R. G. 506; Morris et al. v. C. M. Sc St. P. R. Co.,
1913, 12 R. G. 560; Hughson v. D. S. S. Sc A. R. Co., 1913, 13 R. G. 406;
Callen et al. v. C. M. Sc St. P. R. Co., 1914, 13 R. G. 732; Boardman v.
M. St. P. Sc S. S. M. R. Co., 1914, 14 R. G. 462; Callen et al. v. C. M. Sc
St. P. R. Co., 1914, 14 R. G. 581; Bissell v. C. Sc N. W. R. Co., 1914, 15
R. G. 435; Keup et al. v. M. St. P. Sc S. S. M. R. Co., 1914, 15 R. G. 459.
Sunday train service.
28. The supreme court of this state has laid down the rule that a
railway company is under no obhgation to carry passengers on Sundays
because of the inhibition of the statute (sec. 4595) {Walsh v. C. M. Sc
St. P. R. Co., 1877, 42 Wis. 23). Whatever may be our views as to the
soundness or wisdom of the poHcy thus declared, it is controUing in effect
in the case before us. Until the legislature expressly excepts railroad
Trains 477
■ -. » ■— I I .1 . ' ^ II ■^- . — -11 - . ■■ ■ — — ..-—.I.
companies from the operation of such statute, or the supreme court re-
cedes from its former position, the Commission is powerless to compel
the running of railway trains on Sundays for the convenience of the
public. Seymour Business Men's Assn. v. G. B. Sc W. R. Co., 1912, 8
R. C. 524.
29. The failure of the respondent to stop its Sunday excursion train
at Winnibijou, while making stops at other stations of equal or less im-
portance, is unjustly discriminatory. The respondent is therefore ordered
to arrange the future schedule of its summer Sunday excursion train
between Superior and Bibon to provide a stop at Winnibijou. Hughson v.
D. S. S. & A. R. Co., 1913, 13 R. C. 406.
30. The Sunday passenger train service furnished by respondent be-
tween Madison and Prairie du Chien is inadequate. The operation of a
passenger train in each direction between the points in question is neces-
sary. Respondent ordered to operate a Sunday passenger train in each
direction between Prairie du Chien and Madison, scheduled to arrive at
Madison not later than 10:30 a. m. and to leave not earlier than 2:30
p. m. Blaine p. C. M. & St. P. R. Co., 1915, 15 R. C. 652.
Test of adequacy.
31. The number of passengers to be accommodated is one of the most
significant facts to be considered in connection with the question of what
constitutes reasonably adequate passenger service, but it does not follow
that the number of passengers to be accommodated is the sole factor. A
railway company, by virtue of its duty as a common carrier, must provide
whatever may be reasonably adequate service at every point served by
it. The minimum of the service thus to be provided is practically inde-
pendent of the exact number of passengers at a particular station or on a
particular division. This minimum service must be provided irrespective
of the number of passengers or the railway company must surrender its
rights and functions as a common carrier. Bushnell v. C. M. Sc St. P.
R. Co., 1907, 1 R. C. 532, 536.
32. The adequacy of passenger train service cannot be determined
from the point of view of quantity alone. It is essential that a proper
number of trains be stopped at a station, but it is more important that
the schedule be such as to render travel reasonably convenient. An excess
of trains, operated at inconvenient hours, may result in a service which is
entirely inadequate as to quality. Callen et at. v. C. M. &: St. P. R. Co.,
1914, 14 R. C. 581, 584.
TRAINLOAD RATES.
See Rates — Railroad, 322.
TRAINS.
Limitation of speed of trains, for protection of railroad crossings, see
Railroads, 31.
Power of state to compel the stopping of interstate trains, see Railroad
Commission, 54, 58-60.
Stopping of trains at stations of equal or less importance than a station
at which they^do not stop not unjust^discrimination, see Discrim-
ination, 50, 63.
478 Trains .
Stopping of trains for protection of railroad crossings, see Railroads, 34.
Stopping of trains to render adequate train service, see Train Service,
10, 24-27.
Stopping of interstate trains, when an interference with interstate com
merce, see Train Service, 25.
TRANSFER COMPANIES.
Conduct of railroad company toward transfer companies, see Discrim-
ination, 105.
TRANSFER CONNECTIONS.
Connection of trains at transfer points, see Train Service, 8, 14-16.
Street cars ordered to wait for other cars to obviate unreasonable delay
and hardship to passengers desiring to make a transfer, see Street
Railways, 48.
TRANSFERRING CARS.
Transferring or moving cars from one line to another, see Switch Con-
nections, 27.
TRANSFER OF FREIGHT.
See Connecting Carriers; Switch Connections.
TRANSFERS.
Double transfers on street railways, see Rates — Street Railway, 22-23.
Interchange of transfers between interurban and street railway, recom-
mendation for, see Interurban Railways, 18.
TRANSFORMERS.
Duty of electric utility to provide suitable transformers and lightning
arresters, see Electric Utilities, 48.
TRANSIT PRIVILEGES.
Stoppage in transit does not affect interstate character of shipments, see
Transportation, 3.
I. IN GENERAL. II. CHARGES FOR PRIVILEGE.
I. IN GENERAL.
Conditions under which granted.
1. Milling in transit privileges are generally recognized and may result
in lower cost of production as distinguished from marketing the products,
but they must be granted without unjust discrimination. As to whether it
Transit Privileges. — In general 479
is a discrimination to grant transit privileges to some producers and not
to others among those who are using logs of Hke kinds as raw material,
although the products turned out are different, is a question that depends
upon the facts in each particular case. In re Rates on Pulp Wood, 1908,
2 R. C. 168, 222.
2. This Commission has permitted a lower rate to he made upon
raw material, where the product manufactured from such material was
to be shipped out over the line of road hauling such raw material and the
rates on the raw material plus the rate on the manufactured product
amounted to a fair compensation for the entire haulage service. In re
AppL C. St. P. M. cfc 0. R. Co., 1905, 1 R. C. 16. We also held that car-
riers might make lower commodity rates for the shipment of building
material and machinery to be employed in the erection and first operation
of factories built at points on their lines, than to dealers in such commodi-
ties. In re W. C. R. Co., 1906, 1 R. C. 210. Although grave doubts were
and still are maintained regarding the universal application of the principle
involved in these cases, we believe it was rightfully held that such principle
applied under the concrete circumstances of these cases. Valvoline Oil
Co. V. C. Sc N. W. R. Co. et at., 1908, 2 R. C. 232, 242-243.
3. Whether any particular traffic should be accorded a transit privilege
of the character sought in this case, is not to be determined by considera-
tions of convenience solely. The cost of carriage, the necessities of the
buyer as well as those of the shipper and carrier, the character of the com-
modity and, perhaps, the purpose for which used, the method of handling
the same, the advantage or disadvantage of the shipper respecting the
markets, and other conditions that may arise, are all factors that may be
legitimately considered in reaching a conclusion. W^hether a special
privilege should be allowed, becomes a question of great importance in
each case to the carrier, for the injustice that would result to the carrier
from an indiscriminate extension of such privileges is obvious. Only in
case of overruling necessity is it justifiable, in our opinion, to enforce
such a regulation in favor of shippers and against the wishes of the rail-
way company. Valvoline Oil Co. v. C. & N. W. R. Co. et al., 1908, 2 R. G.
232, 247. .
4. No invariable rule can be laid down as to what commodities or
under what conditions transit privileges are to be accorded. Because
commercial conditions are constantly changing, each case arising must be
considered separately and in the light of its own facts, and the question
of the application of the principle thereto must be determined under the
existing circumstances. Valvoline Oil Co. v. C. Sc N. W. R. Co. et al.,
1909, 3 R. G. 364, 366-367.
Granting of privilege — Benefit to public, to carrier, and to shipper.
5. In the past carriers have found it not only beneficial to shippers,
dealers and consumers generally, but to their own advantage to establish
special transit privileges wherever and whenever the commercial conditions
required them. Valvoline Oil Co. v. C. c^ A^. W. R. Co.'et al, 1909, 3 R. C.
364, 367.
6. Stoppage in transit rules tend to increase the proportion of the
carload traffic as well as the loading per car. They also operate as offsets
480 Transit Privileges. — In general -
to high minimum weight requirements and the great differences between
carload and less than carload rates. It is, of course, a fact that the extra
cost of stopping cars tends to reduce the importance of this privilege to
the shippers. But even when reasonable charges are allowed for such
cost, this privilege would still seem to be of much value to all concerned.
In re Rates on Agricultural Implements, 1913, 11 R. C. 508, 533.
Granting of privilege — Does not affect rates on less than caroad
lots.
7. It is probable that in some instances, and in respect to some com-
modities, the allowance of a transit privilege to partly unload a carload
of such commodities at one or more points, in transit may affect the
number and volume of less than carload shipments of the same, but it
would not operate to modify or change the rate on L. C. L. shipments.
The view that the granting of transit privileges operates to modify rates
involves a confusion of ideas. It confounds the service with the rate or
charge covering the service. The order requiring the allowance of transit
privileges imposes a service, and suggests a specific charge for the same,
but does not, in law or in fact, modify or alter any established rate.
Valvoline Oil Co. v. C. & N. W. R Co. et al, 1909, 3 R. C. 364, 367-368.
Legality of privileges.
8. The legality of practices corresponding to that of "milling in
transit" has been before the courts for determination. The pivotal ques-
tion in each case was whether such practices did not constitute unlawful
discriminations between different shippers. The courts are not all of the
same opinion, some sustaining the principle involved and others rejecting
it. This Commission has permitted a lower rate to be made upon raw
material where the product manufactured from such material was to be
shipped out over the line of road hauling such raw material and the rates
on the raw material plus the rate on the manufactured product amounted
to a fair compensation for the entire haulage service. In re Appl. C. St.
P.M.Sc 0. R. Co., 1905, 1 R. C. 16. This Commission has also held that
carriers might make lower commodity rates for the shipment of building
material and machinery to be employed in the erection and first operation
of factories built at points on their lines, than to dealers in such commodi-
ties. In re Wis. C. R. Co., 1906, 1 R. C. 210. Although grave doubts were
and still are maintained regarding the universal application of the principle
involved in these cases, we believe it was rightfully held that such principle
applied under the concrete circumstances of these cases. Valvoline Oil
Co. V. C. & N. W. R. Co. et al., 1908, 2 R. C. 232, 242-243.
9. Transit privileges, such as those in question here, are also provided
for by and come within the laws. Cochrane Co. v. C. M. Sc St. P. R. Co.,
1908, 3 R. C. 1, 4.
Number of stops.
10. We are not convinced from our investigation of the matter that
more than one stop in transit for th^ purpose of partly unloading is required
to render the service adequate in respect to the trafiic here under considera-
tion, and, therefore, but one stop will be ordered. The usual and custom-
ary charge for such privilege is five dollars, which seems to us a reasonable
Transmission and Transformation Expenses 481
compensation for the additional service required. Valvoline Oil Co. v.
C. & N. W. R. Co. et ai, 1908, 2 R. C. 232, 248..
Original shipment separated into two or more shipments.
11. Where a shipment of grain is entitled to transit privileges and
where the shipment is separated at the transit point into two or more
shipments, each destined to points taking different rates from point of
origin to point of final destination, the application of different rates to the
shipment involved is not authorized in the present tariffs. Blodgett Milling
Co.u. C. <Sc N. W. R. Co., 1914, 14 R. C. 771, 774.
Rate adjustments hased upon transit privileges.
12. A considerable proportion of the rate adjustments in this state
are based upon stoppages in transit, that is, such privileges are granted
on many of the leading commodities of commerce. Cochrane Co. v.
C. M. & St. P. R. Co., 1908, 3 R. C. 1, 29.
II. CHARGES FOR PRIVILEGE.
Charges on basis of additional pay for additional services.
13. Transit privileges are merely' auxiliary services, which are per-
formed by the carrier in connection with the haulage services covered
by the through rates, and for which additional services specific charges
are exacted besides the regular transportation charges. Valvoline Oil
Co. V. C. & N. W. R. Co. et ai, 1909, 3 R. C. 364, 367-368.
14. In requiring a through shipment of a carload of freight to be
stopped at one or more points in transit for the purpose of finishing loading
or of partly unloading, an increase of service only is occasioned, and neither
the through rate applicable to the shipment or any other rate is affected
thereby. Valvoline Oil Co. v. C. & N. W. R. Co. et ai, 1909. 3 R. C. 364,
368.
Customary charge for stop.
15. We are not convinced from our investigation of the matter that
more than one stop in transit for the purpose of partly unloading is re-
quired to render the service adequate in respect to the traffic here under
consideration, and therefore but one stop will be ordered. The usual
and customary charge for such privilege is five dollars, which seems to us
a reasonable compensation for the additional service required. Valvoline
Oil Co. V. C. & N. W. R. Co. et ai, 1908, 2 R. C. 232, 248.
TRANSIT RATES.
See Transit Privileges.
Concentration rate defined as a transit rate, see Rates — Railroad, 26, 40.
TRANSMISSION AND TRANSFORMATION
EXPENSES.
Apportionment of transmission and transformation expenses in the de-
termination of unit costs for electric utilities, see Accounting, 28.
16
482 Transmission Lines
TRANSMISSION LINES.
1. Railroad Commission without authority to compel a change in loca-
tion of high voltage transmission lines when they interfere with telephone
lines. Ebenezer Tel. Co. v. M. L. H. & T. Co., 1915, 15 R. C. 619; Platte-
ville etc. Tel. Co. u. Lancaster El. Lt. Co., 1915, 15 R. C. 622.
TRANSPORTATION.
IN GENERAL.
Definition of transportation.
1. We do not understand why the switching of a car for a mile or
two miles, within the incorporated limits of the city of Janesville, is not a
transportation service just as much as the hauling of a car for a like distance
between two stations in a regular freight train. By transportation we
mean the movement of a commodity or an article between two points
not necessarily railway stations. That this service is performed by a switch-
ing crew cannot change the fact that the article is transported. The service
may be less expensive than if performed by a regular train crew, but this
does not change the fact that the article is carried. Clark v. C. M. &
St. P. R. Co., 1907, 1 R. C. 733, 734, 738.
2. Congress has defined the term "transportation," as used within
the Act to Regulate Interstate Commerce, as including "cars and other
vehicles, all instrumentalities and facilities of shipment or carriage,
irrespective of ownership or of any contract, expressed or implied, for the
use thereof, and all services in connection with the receipt, delivery,
elevation, transfer in transit, ventilation, refrigeration or icing, storage,
and handling of property transported." Hoyt <fc Bergen v. C. & N. W. R.
Co., 1912, 8 R. C. 532, 533-534.
WHAT TRANSPORTATION IS INTERSTATE AND WHAT
INTRASTATE.
V
Interstate transportation — Effect of stoppage in transit.
3. In presenting claims for reparation upon both state and interstate
shipments to this Commission in the present case, it seems to have been
the theory of the petitioners that as the service in stopping the cars to
finish loading was rendered entirely within the state, the charges exacted
therefor were subject to modification by this Commission.- This is an
erroneous conception of the character of such service. When a car was
partly loaded at the original point of shipment, it was destined either to a
point within or without the state. In the latter event, it was an interstate
shipment and any transit privilege allowed would be a service rendered
in connection with such transportation. All charges exacted for any serv-
ice rendered in connection therewith are subject to the exclusive jurisdic-
tion of the interstate commerce commission. Hoyt <& Bergen v. C. Sc N.
W. R. Co., 1912, 8 R. C. 532, 533-534.
Transportation. — What is interstate and what intrastate 483
Switching service — -Force of the original bill of lading in determi-
nation of the character of the transportation service.
4. In determining the intrastate or interstate character of the ship-
ments in question the force of the original bill of lading is important, al-
though the time when and the place where the original bill of lading is
transferred by the consignee to another party does not appear to us to be
decisive. This transfer appears to us to be more closely associated with
questions of liability for loss and damage. Duluth-Superior Millg. Co.
et at. V. N. P. R. Co., 1910, 6 R. C. 70, 71-72.
Ownership of commodity switched immate;rial in determi-
nation of the character of the transportation service.
5. The particular ownership of the grain at one point or at a specific
time is immaterial in ihe determination of the character of the transporta-
tion with respect to its being interstate or intrastate. It follows that ques-
tions of liability in case of loss or damage are immaterial in determining
the one point at issue. Duluth-Superior Millg. Co. et al. v. N. P. R. Co.,
1910, 6 R. C. 70, 71.
Question of absorption of charges immaterial in the deter-
mination of the character of the transportation service.
6. It would doubtless be difficult to maintain that grain shipped from
competitive points and ultimately unloaded at one of the elevators of the
petitioners herein was subject to federal statutes, and that grain shipped
from non-competitive points to the same elevator was subject to the
statutes of the state of Wisconsin, simply because in the former case the
common carrier at the point of origin absorbed the final switching charges
and in the other case it did not. It is conceivable that the Soo Railway
Company might hire teams for the conveyance of grain from its cars to
petitioners' elevators and pay the cost of this transfer. The amounts thus
paid to the owners of the teams would correspond to the switching charges
which the Soo absorbs under the conditions given. If the absorption of
the charges is the decisive factor, then the shipment of grain remains inter-
state to petitioners' elevators, and such interstate transportation includes
the transfer by team. Upon this hypothesis the interstate commerce
commission would have jurisdiction over the teams doing this work. The
untenability of this position is shown by one of the cases cited: New
York ex rel. Penn. R. R. Co. v. Knight, 1904, 192 U. S. 21. Duluth-Superior
Millg. Co. et al., v. N. P. R. Co., 1910, 6 R. C. 70, 72.
Switching of commodities brought from points outside of the
state when the switching is not done under the original con-
tract of transportation but is a distinct movement governed
by the local switching tariff.
7. Switching is a distinct and separate movement, governed by local
switching tariff which is applicable to all switching movements, irrespective
of the points of origin or of the particular carrier or carriers participating
in the initial interstate haul. It is supplementary to the interstate trans-
portation rather than a part of it, and therefore subject to the jurisdiction
of this Commission. Duluth-Superior Millg. Co. et al. v. N. P. R. Co.,
1910, 6 R. C. 70, 72-73; 1911, 7 R. C. 459, 461.
484 Transportation. — What is interstate and what intrastate
Transportation of traffic within state when shipped from point
without state.
8. Where a shipment is made from without the state and is deUvered
to the shipper or his consignee, at a point within the state, the interstate
character of the shipment ceases. Any further movement of the car within
the state, upon a new biUing, is purely an intrastate transportation and
cannot be considered as a part of the prior interstate movement with the
effect of giving it an interstate character. Wis. Coal Co. v. W. C. R. Co.,
1909, 3 R. G. 339, 341.
TRANSPOSITIONS.
Making of transpositions for purpose of eliminating cross-talk on tele-
phone lines, see Telephone Utilities, 45.
TRIMMINGS.
Reasonableness of rates on trimmings and other waste lumber products,
see Rates — Railroad, 270.
TRUCKS.
Farm and logging trucks, classification under agricultural implements,
see Rates — Railroad, 200.
TRUNK LINE RULES.
Application of rules.
1. The trunk line rules take precedence over the western classification.
AH the respondents in this case are members of the western trunk line
committee and as such they abide by the trunk line rules. Medford Fruit
Package Co. v. W. C. R. Co. et al, 1906, 1 R. C. 44, 48.
TRUNKING CONDITIONS.
Additional trunk line needed to render adequate telephone service, see
Telephone Utilities, 53.
TWINE.
Reasonableness of rates on twine, see Rates — Railroaei, 294.
ULTRA VIRES.
Usurpation of franchise or exercise of unauthorized powers by a railroad
company, see Railroads, 75.
by a telephone company, a grievance against sovereignty, see Tele-
phone Utilities, 65.
Unit Costs 485
UMBRELLA SHED.
See Station Facilities, 37.
UNDISTRIBUTED EXPENSES.
Apportionment of undistributed expenses in the determination of unit
costs for electric utilities, see Accounting, 29.
for gas utilities, see Accounting, 56.
for heating utilities, see Accounting, 67.
for interurban railways, see Accounting, 73.
for joint (electric and water) utilities, see Accounting, 117-118.
UNDUE PREFERENCE.
See Discrimination.
UNEARNED INCREMENT.
Unearned increment as element in the valuation of public utilities, see
Valuation, 124-125.
UNIFORM ACCOUNTS.
See Accounting, 186.
UNIFORM METER RATES.
Uniform or straight meter rates generally undesirable, see Rates —
Electric, 50; Rates — Water, 58.
UNIFORM SERVICE RATES, RULES, ETC.
Uniform service rates, rules and regulations among telephone companies^
see Telephone Utilities, 54.
UNION STATION.
See Station Facilities, 38-39.
UNIT COSTS.
Average cost of unit seldom a satisfactory basis for rate making for gas
utilities, see Accounting, 61.
Determination of unit costs for electric utilities, see Accounting, 8-34.
for express companies, see Accounting, 35-38.
for gas utilities, see Accounting, 39-62.
for heating utilities, see Accounting, 63-68.
for interurban railways, see Accounting, 69-88.
486 Unit Costs
Determination of unit costs for joint utilities, see Accounting, 89-126.
for railroads, see Accounting, 127-137.
for street railways, see Accounting, 138-150.
for telephone utilities, see Accounting, 151-173.
for water utilities, see Accounting, 174-185.
UNIT PRICES.
Basis of unit prices in the valuation of property of public utilities, see
Valuation, 68-70.
Unit prices in determination of value of public utilities, see Valuation,
154-156.
U. S. MAIL TRAINS.
Power of Commission to stop interstate trains carrying U. S. mail, see
Railroad Commission, 58.
UNJUST DISCRIMINATION.
See Discrimination.
UNLIMITED SERVICE.
Option of having unlimited toll service or paying a toll charge on message
basis, see Rates — Telephone, 77.
UNLOADING.
Free time allowance for unloading, see Demurrage Rules, 1-7.
UNREASONABLE RATES.
See Rates.
USE.
Right of common carrier to designate purpose for which their tracks
shall be used, see Railroads, 101.
Use to which article is put as element considered in making railroad
rates, see Rates — Railroad, 145.
Use to which an article is put as matter considered in determining reason-
ableness of railroad rates, see Rates — Railroad, 191.
UTILITIES.
See Electric Utilities; Gas Utilities; Heating Utilities; Public
Utilities; Telephone Utilities; Toll Bridges; Water Utilities.
UTILITY CARS.
Electric railway not a common carrier of freight for hire, see Street
Railways, 31, 49.
Valuation. — Of property of public utilities 487
VALUATION.
L DETERMINATION OF THE VALUE OF PROPERTY OF PUBLIC
UTILITIES.
a. Elements considered. c. Valuation in particular cases.
b. Methods of appraisal.
I. DETERMINATION OF THE VALUE OF PROPERTY OF
PUBLIC UTILITIES.
a. ELEMENTS CONSIDERED.
In generaL
1. The rules laid down for determining the fair value of the property
are not very definite, but the courts hrave said that in ascertaining the
value of the property, the original cost of construction, the amount
expended for permanent improvements, the amount and market value of
the bonds and stocks, the present as compared with the original cost of
construction, the probable earning capacity of the property under the
particular rates prescribed, and the sum required to meet the operating
expenses, were all matters for consideration, and to be given such weight
as might be just and right in each case, with due regard for the rights of
the public as well as for the interests of the railroad company. It has
also been held that in determining what is a fair rate of interest upon the
valuation, such factors as the current rates of interest and profits are
among those which should receive due consideration. Noble et al. v.
C. St. P. M. & 0. R. Co., 1907, 1 R. C. 767, 775.
2. The original cost of construction, the cost of reconstruction new,
the cost of reconstruction new less depreciation, the assets and liabilities
when taken as a whole, the capitalization and the gross earnings and
operating expenses, are elements that enter into the value of the public
utilities and should be considered in determining their value for rate-
making and other purposes. Each one of these elements, in fact, con-
stitutes evidence of what is the fair value. Hill et al. v. Antigo Water Co.,
1909, 3 R. C. 623, 631; In re Menominee & Marinette U. 6c Tr. Co., 1909.
3 R. C. 778, 791-792; State Journal Prtg. Co. et al. v. Madison Gas & El.
Co., 1910, 4 R. C. 501, 590; Cunningham et al. v. Chippewa Falls W. Wks.
Sc Ltg. Co., 1910, 5 R. C. 302, 308-309; City of Beloit v. Beloit W. G. Sz
El. Co., 1911, 7 R. C. 187, 255; In re Purchase Manitowoc El. Lt. Plant,
1914, 13 R. C. 452, 465.
3. In determining the value of the physical property of a public
utility several elements must be taken into consideration. The three
elements of greatest importance in fixing the value of such plants are the
original cost, the cost of reproducing the plant, and the present value. As
to which of these elements shall be given the greatest consideration,
must depend upon the circumstances in each case and must also depend
upon the purpose for which the valuation is made. Hill et al. v. Antigo
Water Co., 1909, 3 R. C. 623, 631; In re Menominee and Marinette Lt.
Sc Tr. Co., 1909, 3 R. C. 778, 785-787; State Journal Prtg. Co. et al. v.
Madison Gas & El. Co., 1910, 4 R. C. 501, 557; In re Manitowoc W. Wks.
Co., 1911, 7 R. C. 71, 74.
488 Valuation. — Of property of public utilities
a. ELEMENTS CONSIDERED. — Continued
In general.
4. The investors in the plant and those who carry on its business are
equitably entitled to reasonable returns for interest and profits on a valua-
tion that fairly represents the legitimate and necessary costs of construct-
ing the plant and of building up its business. The valuation which is
thus made the basis for the earnings or the rates should also be a valuation
that is subject to the fewest possible fluctuations. Such a valuation as
this appears to bo equitable to the investors and those who carry on the
business on the one hand and to the customers of the plant on the other.
It also furnishes a basis upon which rates may be fixed that are reasonable
and just to all concerned and that also have such stability as is required
by the best interests of those affected. Hill et al. v. Antigo Water Co.,
1909, 3 R. C. 623, 640.
5. From the standpoint of justice between investor and consumer,
the fairest valuation for rate-making purposes would seem to be that
which represents a fair cost of the f^lant as well as of its business and fran-
chise. This cost measures the sacrifices of the investors as well as the
amount that has been incurred for the benefit of the customers. Hill
et al. V. Antigo Water Co., 1909, 3 R. C. 623, 723; State Journal Prtg. Co.
et al. V. Madison Gas d: El. Co., 1910, 4 R. C. 501, 535.
6. Items charged to operating expenses of public utilities should not
also be included in the value of the plant. As to which one of these two
places any given item of cost belongs from a theoretical point of view,
would seem to depend upon its nature. State Journal Prtg. Co. et al. v.
Madison Gas & El. Co., 1910, 4 R. C. 501, 537-538.
7. The value of the plant, from the standpoint of the rate schedule,
does not always admit of ready analysis. An inventory of the property
and its appraisement furnishes a tangible basis, but alone may not be
rehable since it may not always take full cognizance of unusual obstacles
in organization, incorporation and construction, fluctuations in prices
of materials, labor difficulties, contingencies, etc. These items of expense,
under proper accounting, are revealed from the construction records
which should show, by proper entries, all disbursements properly charge-
able to construction. Other factors, however, such as depreciation
through wear and tear in service, the failure of the management to keep
its property abreast of the march of invention and progress, the extent
to which the facilities of the plant are capable of supplying the needs
of a growing and shifting population, are elements of present value.
Taken alone, not any of these methods of determining value is conclusive.
They merely supply evidence of what is a proper solution. When,
however, they are all considered, so that there shall be eleminated indi-
vidual fluctuations and abnormal situations and the plant gauged by
broad standards of reasonableness, it is possible to ascertain the fair
present value with approximate accuracy. City of Ripon v. Ripon Lt.
& W. Co., 1910, 5 R. C. 1, 6, 7.
8. For rate-making purposes the actual total investment in the enter-
prise, subject to certain qualifications, seems to be the basis for determin-
Valuation. — Of property of public utilities 489
ing the resonableness of the charges that may be exacted of the pubUc
for the services rendered f)r product furnished in certain jurisdictions.
Of course, where such information is not available, the reasonable value
of the investment would have to be ascertained by some method of ap-
praisement, and in such event the "actual total investment" doctrine
would be inapplicable. City of Appleton v. Appleton Water Wks. Co.,
1910, 5 R. C. 215, 220.
9. The valuation placed upon utilities depends, to some extent at
least, upon the purposes for which it is intended. For instance, in valuing
utilities for the purpose of condemnation and purchase, many elements
must often be taken into account which should not be given any considera-
tion in valuations made for the purposes of rate making. In re Manitowoc
W. Wks. Co., 1911, 7 R. C. 71, 72-73.
10. In fixing the value of a property for rate-making purposes, con-
sideration should be given, on the one hand, to the ability of the utility to
meet the reasonable demands placed upon it by its consumers, and to the
existence of investment beyond the reasonable demands of the present
or near future on the other. City of Neenah v. Wis. Tr. Lt. Hi. & P. Co.,
1911, 7 R. C. 477, 480.
11. A large number of factors have been suggested as probable tests
of value. Among these are capitalization, the appraised cost of reproduc-
tion new, the depreciated or present value, the appraised value of the
earnings, the value for purposes of taxation, and the appraised value of
the service. The importance of the various factors and their equity to
both the company and the public will depend upon the availability of
evidence and the local circumstances surrounding the case, such as the
history of the property, the sacrifices of the owners, and the satisfaction
that is given to the public. No single factor can be said to control in each
and every valuation case, and it appears that no single rule has been de-
veloped by judicial interpretation in proceedings of this kind. City of
Milwaukee v. T. M. E. R. Sc L. Co., 1912, 10 R. C. 1, 63-64.
12. The fair value of the property and business of utilities can, as a
rule, be best determined from such factors as their original cost of construc-
tion and development, and from the cost of reproduction of the same under
conditions which are normal, and when, in both cases, full consideration
is given to the depreciation that has taken place in the property because
of age, use, and other reasons. City of Milwaukee v. T. M. E. R. Sc L. Co.,
1912, 10 R. C, 1, 85.
13. The value of a plant and its business that is ultimately found to
be fair and equitable under the circumstances, may not agree either with
the original cost or with the cost of reproduction, but in most instances
it is likely to be found at some figure in the neighborhood of these costs.
Operators in public utilities who fail to use ordinary business judgment
either in the location, construction or management of the same, or who
incur unnecessary and excessive obligations in other ways, should not be
permitted to shift such extra costs upon the public. It is, in fact, to
prevent such shifting and other unfair practices of this kind, which are
possible under monopolistic conditions, that public utilities have been
placed under government regulation. City of Milwaukee v. T. M. E. R. Sc
L. Co., 1912, 10 R. C. 1, 85.
490 Valuation. — Of property of p.uhlic utilities
a. ELEMENTS CONSIDERED. — Continued
Amount actually invested.
14. The company is entitled to a fair return, not always upon the
cost of the property, because it may have cost too much; not always upon
the outstanding indebtedness, because it may be in excess of the real
value of the property; not always upon the total amount invested, be-
cause some portion of that which is acquired by the investment may be
neither necessary nor presently useful for the public service; but upon
the fair present value of that which is used for the public benefits, having
due regard always to the reasonable value of the service rendered. {Spring
Valley Water Co. u. San Francisco, 1908, 165 Fed. 667, 680). Fullmer v.
Wausau St. R. Co., 1910, 5 R. C. 114, 124.
15. Where the company paid more than it should have paid, the
amount of this excess should not be included in the total sum upon which
the company is entitled to a reasonable rate of return, because upon this
assumption, in the language of the court, the property "cost too much."
{Spring Valley Water Co. v. San Francisco, 1908, 165 Fed. 667, 680.)
Fullmer v. Wausau St. R. Co., 1910, 5 R. C. 114, 125.
16. The rule that the money actually invested should furnish the
basis upon which returns should be made, without qualifications, is subject
to serious objections. It would impose upon the public, in some cases,
the obligation of paying returns upon extravagant and unwise investments.
It can only be accepted as sound when the money sunk in the investment
has been prudently expended and is clearly not so excessive in amount,
in comparison with the actual present value of the investment, that to
pay a return upon it would require the exaction of rates that are unusual,
or higher than the value of the service to the customer. This is in accord
with the best considered law, in our judgment, on the subject. City of
Appleton V. Appleton Water Whs. Co., 1910, 5 R. G. 215, 221.
Book value.
17. The book value of the plants to the present owners as this value
is disclosed by the construction accounts and balance sheets is also im-
portant in determining the value for rate-making purposes. It is, however,
so much dependent upon the original cost, and even on the cost of reproduc-
tion and other elements, that it is difficult to draw any distinct lines be-
tween them. State Journal Prtg. Co. et al. v. Madison Gas Sz El. Co., 1910,
4R. C. 501, 557-558.
18. Further light on the original cost and the book value may be ob-
tained from the balance sheets of the plants, which may be said to repre-
sent statements of the assets and liabilities from year to year as shown on
the books of the company. State Journal Prtg. Co. et al. v. Madison Gas Sc
El. Co., 1910, 4 R. C. 501, 563.
19. If the books of a utility have been accurately kept and if correct
methods of accounting have been followed, the books should show the
total amount expended for construction and also the extent of the deprecia-
tion of the property. The book value should not ordinarily vary to any
great extent from the cost of reproduction. Kittleson et al. v. Elroy Mun.
W. & Lt. Plant, 1914, 14 R. C. 485, 489.
Valuation. — Of property of public utilities 491
20. A summary of thirty-five valuations of electric utilities in the
state made by the Commission shows that only three have a book value
below the physical valuation and that the average book value is from 50
per cent to 70 per cent in excess of the Commission's valuation (ex-
cluding the 12 per cent overhead). Douglass et al. v. Equitable EL Lt. Co.
1913, 12 R. C. 337, 341, 342.
Capitalization.
21. The capitalization should be considered in determining the value
of a utility for rate-making purposes, as it may have some bearing on the
values. In many cases*, however, it is found to cover such a variety of
elements both relevant and irrelevant, that it frequently is of comparative-
ly little assistance in determining the fair value of plants. State Journal
Prtg. Co. et at. v. Madison Gas & El Co., 1910, 4 R. C. 501, 557-558.
Capitalization of amount claimed due for past services rendered
by utility.
22. In our calculations we have assumed that the company did actu-
ally receive the usual amount of hydrant rentals during the years in ques-
tion. If the company can not recover the whole of whatever amount it
claims is due it must be because, after a fair trial in court, it is found that
the company is not entitled to it; and if the company is not entitled to it,
it can hardly be claimed that the Commission should capitalize the amount
in controversy against the consumers in the present case. City of Wash-
burn V. Washburn W. Wks. Co., 1910, 6 R. C. 74, 80-81.
Capitalized value.
23. It is well known from experience that public utilities are mostly
over-capitalized, and that the par value of their outstanding securities
usually exceeds the actual investment in the property that is used and
useful in connection with the services they render to the public. In fact,
the bonds alone often amount to more than the cost-value of this property.
City of Milwaukee v. T. M. E. R. <Sc L. Co., 1912, 10 R. C. 1, 84.
Cost of securing capital.
24. The cost of capital and of the enterpriser are fixed by economic
forces or laws in the open market. These laws cannot be controlled either
by the state, the city, or this Commission. Public utilities, like everybody
else, must pay the market prices for what they need. Exceptions to this
are only temporary in their nature. This Commission has been mad'e
aware of this is in more ways than one. In re Invest. Ashland Water Co.,
1914, 14 R. C.» 721, 739-740.
"Damages to owner of joint property.
25. The fact that there must be a separation of the electric property
from the mill property, and as such separation must necessarily result in
leaving to the owners of the property certain units which are necessary
and required for the operation of the mill as well as of the electric plant,
damages must be included for the injury inflicted upon the owner of the
property. In re Cashton Lt. & P. Co., 1908, 3 R. C. 67, 80; In re Purchase
El PI of Prairie du Sac Mill Sc Lt. Co., 1914, 15 R. C. 360, 363.
492 Valuation. — Of property of public utilities
a. ELEMENTS CONSIDERED. — Continued
Earning value.
26. The earning value of a plant and the rates the plant charges for
the services it renders depend upon each other. In view of this fact it
must also be clear that the former cannot be a safe or equitable basis for
the latter, and that the earnings cannot be a fair basis for any valuation
upon which rates must be based. This is quite generally true, regardless
of the methods under which the earnings may be used for measuring this
value and whether it applies to the value of the plant alone, or to the value
of its business alone. Hill et al. v. Antigo Water Co., 1909, 3 R. G. 623,
716-720; City of Milwaukee v. T. M. E. R. & L. Co., 1912, 10 R. C. 1, 63.
Financial condition of plants.
27. In determining the value of a public utility for rate-making pur-
poses, considerable importance should be attached to the conditions under
which the plants are being operated and by which they are surrounded.
Some plants, for instance, may earn more than reasonable returns on the
investment, others again may earn only this amount, while there may be
plants that fall short of earning their expenses. These are circumstances
which can not be overlooked in the adjustment of rates. Facts that may
be applicable to one of these classes of plants, may be entirely out of place
for one or both of the other classes. Hill et al. v. Antigo Water Co., 1909,
3 R. C. 623, 730-733, 749.
Franchise values — In general.
28. A fair valuation of franchises for rate-making purposes cannot
be based on earning value. Earnings depend on rates and the one can
therefore not be a fair basis upon which to fix the other. The value of a
franchise is itself based on the capacity of a plant to earn profits, and its
value increases as the profits increase. If, therefore, high profits could be
justified because of great franchise values, this fact, in turn, would enhance
the value of the franchise itself, and so justify still higher charges. Hill
et al. V. Antigo Water Co., 1909, 3 R. C. 623, 724; City of Appleton v.
Appleton Water Wks. Co., 1910, 5 R. C. 215, 281.
29. The franchise value that is just to both investor and customer is
that value which is represented by costs. A reasonable valuation of the
sacrifices involved in furnishing the service constitutes the fairest basis
for just charges. Upon this amount the investors are ordinarily entitled
to reasonable returns. On the whole, the cost appears to be the best and
safest basis, not only for valuation, but for earnings or rates. Hill et al.
V. Antigo Water Co., 1909, 3 R. C. 623, 724.
30. The fact that it appears to be inequitable to include any other
franchise values for rate-fixing purposes than those which are represented'
by legitimate costs, does not mean that franchises are without value to
their owners. On the contrary, franchises are of immense value. With-
out them the physical property of a plant would be worth little or nothing.
In fact, it would be worth little, if anything, above its scrap value. This
is certainly true of the greater proportion of the various parts of the plants
' outside of the real estate. Franchises have value because "they authorize
the gainful use of private property in a particular manner," and for the
Valuation. — Of property of public utilities 493
reason that by doing so they ordinarily maintain at par the amount in-
vested in the plant and their business. Any right that will accomplish
all this is of immense importance, even if it cannot be directly capitalized
for rate-making purposes. By imparting such value to the tangible
property and the business of the plants, the franchises become a part of
their total value and should be treated accordingly. Hill et al. v. Antigo
Water Co., 1909, 3 R. C. 623, 730.
31. The rights to do business in a particular city, which rights have
been granted free of cost, can hardly be legitimately capitalized by utilities
which are not entitled to more than reasonable returns on their invest-
ment. State Journal Prtg. Co. et al. v. Madison Gas Sc EL Co., 1910, 4
R. C. 501, 578; City of Beloit v. Beloit \V. G. Sc El. Co., 1911, 7 R. C. 187,
277.
Capitalization based on estimate of free service to city under
original franchise.
32. Claim was made for a franchise value based on an estimate of the
free service rendered according to the original franchise. The franchise
has been given up for an indeterminate permit and reliable records of free
service during the life of the franchise are not available. Upon the sur-
render of respondent's original franchise, obligations to supply the city
with free service ceased, and the value cf such service as may have been sub-
sequently rendered can hardly be made now the basis of a franchise
value. It does not appear that a very material sum may be properly
added to the valuation on account of operating expenses incurred for free
service under the earlier franchise provisions. City of Rhinelander v.
Rhinelander Ltg. Co., 1912, 9 R. C. 406, 428-429.
Exclusive rights to operate pviblic utilities.
33. That exclusive rights to operate public utilities can have any
value that can be equitably capitalized as against the consumers, appears
to be extremely doubtful. State Journal Prtg. Co. et al. v. Madison Gas
& EL Co., 1910, 4 R. C. 501, 586-587.
Indeterminate permit.
34. The respondent is operating under an indeterminate permit,
which it obtained by operation of law in accordance with the provisions
of the statute, and which is much more valuable than the ordinary special
franchises, because the company now has a legally protected monopoly
and is subject to no different supervision and regulation than it would
have been had it continued to operate under its original grant. Further-
more, its investment is now protected not only against the consequences of
competition, but also against the possibility of total loss on the expiration
of the original grant. It can never be deprived of its property except on
the payment of the fair value thereof by the municipality. While such
indeterminate permit or franchise is of great value to the respondent, it
could not operate to enhance the value of the property upon which re-
turns must be computed. City of Appleton v. Appleton Water Wks. Co.,
1910, 5 R. C. 215, 284-285.
35. Obviously the term of the indeterminate permit is indefinite and
limited only by the happening of the event specified in the statute. The
494 Valuation.— Of property of public utilities
moment the municipality exercises its option to purchase the plant of a
public utility operating under an indeterminate permit, the life of such
permit is terminated and henceforth the same possesses no more value
than a franchise for a definite term of years upon the expiration of the
term. It is manifestly the purpose of the law to relieve a municipality
of any and all obligation to make compensation for the privilege of doing
business, granted to a public utility, when the municipality determines to
acquire the property of such public utility. As the company's privilege
of continuing in business has expired, no compensation can be awarded
for a right that no longer exists. In re Cashton Lt. Sc P. Co., 1908, 3
R. G. 67, 84; In re Appleton Water Wks. Co., 1910, 6 R. C. 97, 118-119;
In re Purchase Oshkosh Water Wks. Plant, 1913, 12 R. C. 602, 663.
a. ELEMENTS CONSIDERED.— Continued
Franchise values — Telephone utilities.
36. Under the decisions of the supreme court of this state no local
franchise is required by a telephone company, and none could, therefore,
lawfully be granted by the local authorities. Franchise values do not,
therefore, attach to the business of telephone companies in Wisconsin.
Payne et al. v. Wis. Tel Co., 1909, 4 R. C. 1, 60.
Future value.
37. The law under which the Commission derives its authority to
supervise the rates of telephone companies provides, among other things,
that "the Commission shall value all the property of every public utility
actually used and useful for the convenience of the public." It is the mani-
fest intention of the law that this value, and no other, be used in determin-
ing the reasonableness of rates. No authority has been shown the Com-
mission for considering value which it is expected will go into the plant,
but not yet there, for the purpose of ascertaining the reasonableness of
rates. The blanket authority to increase rates at the will of the petitioner,
up to a certain amount determined only by the expectations of the peti-
tioner as to the necessity of increasing its investment, cannot be granted.
In re Appl. Portage Tel. Co., 1908, 2 R. C. 692, 693.
Going concern.
38. While the franchise value is excluded from the cost of reproduc-
tion, arguments can be adduced for adding to the cost of reproduction a
fair amount representing the value of the railway organization and its
business and traffic connections. Buell v. C. M. Sc St. P. R. Co., 1907,
1 R. C. 324, 486.
39. Although the franchise of the public utility has expired, its plant
is to be taken over by the village as a going concern, and just compensa-
tion must be awarded for the property taken as such, that is, as a living
and operating entity, engaged in serving the public, and not as a mere
plant without patrons and without privilege or right to operate and serve
the public and having but a salvage value. In re Cashton Lt. Sc P. Co,,
1908, 3 R. C. 67, 85-86.
40. No valuation based on any other theory than that of the plant
being a going concern can be accepted under the ruling of the courts.
In re Purchase El. PL of Prairie du Sac Mill & Lt. Co., 1914, 1 5 R. C. 360, 362.
Valuation. — Of property of public utilities 495
41. The value to be fixed must be the value of the going concern,
and not the value of the physical plant, as an entity distinct from the
business in which the company is engaged. To determine this fair value
consideration must be given to such elements as the value of the physical
property, the going value, the cost of securing money, etc. In re Pur-
chase Janesville Water Wks. Plant, 1915, 15 R. C. 674, 676.
Going value — Definition of.
42. By going value we understand is meant that value which arises
from having an established going business. While not the exact equivalent
of good will, as applied in ordinary business, it is of a somewhat similar
nature, and attaches to the business, rather than to the property employed
in such business. The fact that the business is established is, of course,
a material fact in ascertaining the value of the plant, and especially is
this true where the property is being estimated for the purpose of sale or
condemnation; but as a basis for estimating profits its significance is
less apparent. {Cedar Rapids Water Co. v. Cedar Rapids, 1902, 118 la.
234, 262.) In re Cashton Lt. & P. Co., 1908, 3 R. C. 67, 87.
Distinguished from the value of a going concern.
43. In the testimony going value was defined as that value which is
added to the physical value of a plant by virtue of the successful and
harmonious operation of the whole, and the coordination of the various
parts. This might, with propriety, be termed a definition of the value of
a going concern as distinguished from going value or the uncompensated
cost incurred in building up the business. The value of a going concern is
generally greater than the sum of the values of the separate physical
parts of the plant. The seller of such a plant is in a position to exact more,
and the purchaser would generally be willing to pay more, than for a
plant which has no established business. In expropriation proceedings,
likewise, the owner or owners of a plant which is a going concern would
doubtless be awarded a larger amount of damages than the owner or
owners of a plant which has not yet been placed upon a going basis. But
this "more" in the value of a plant in the case of purchase and sale,
or expropriation, is not a matter in which the public is interested in pro-
ceedings of this kind. This "more" is not property used and useful for
the convenience of the public within the meaning of the statute. On the
other hand, if property is devoted to the public use, and reasonable care
has been exercised in all the phases of its management, but the owners
have not received a fair return during the earlier years of the operation
of the plant in which the property is used for the convenience of the
public, the deficit thus incurred must be made up out of later earnings,
insofar as this is commercially possible and expedient. In other words,
every effort honestly put forth, every dollar properly expended, and every
obligation legitimately incurred in the establishment of an efficient
public utility business must be taken into consideration in the making of
rates for such business. Collectively the elements just referred to may
be designated by the term going value, and in this sense there can be no
question regarding the propriety and justice of admitting going value
as a consideration in the determination of rates. Payne et al. v. Wfs.
Tel. Co., 1909, 4 R. G. 1, 60-61.
496 Valuation. — Of property of public utilities
a. ELEMENTS CONSIDERED. — Continued
Going value — Necessity for considering.
44. The courts have almost universally held, that going value is an
important and valuable consideration, which cannot be left out of account
in fixing the fair value of the property of a public service corporation
devoted to the public service. In re Cashton Lt. Sc P. Co., 1908, 3 R. G.
67, 94-95; In re Appleton Water Wks. Co., 1910, 6 R. C. 97, 120.
Net cost of building up the business — In general,
45. New plants are seldom paying at the start. Several years are
usually required before they obtain a sufficient amount of business or
earnings to cover operating expenses, including depreciation and a reason-
able rate of interest upon the investment. The amount by which the
earnings fail to meet these requirements may thus be regarded as deficits
from the operation. These deficits constitute the cost of building up the
business of the plant. They are as much a part of the cost of building up
the business as loss of interest during the construction of the plant is a
part of the cost of its construction. They are taken into account by
those who enter upon such undertakings, and if they cannot be recovered
in some way, the plant fails by that much to yield reasonable returns
upon the amount that has been expended upon it and its business. Hill
€i al. V. Antigo Water Co., 1909, 3 R. C. 623, 706-709; In re Menominee &
Marinette Lt. & Tr. Co., 1909, 3 R. C. 778, 792; State Journal Prtg. Co. u.
Madison Gas & El. Co., 1910, 4 R. C. 501, 577; Cunningham et al. v.
Chippewa Falls W. Wks. & Ltg. Co., 1910, 5 R. C. 302, 314-315; City of
Racine v. Racine Gas Lt. Co., 1911, 6 R. C. 228, 277; City of Beloit v.
Beloit W. G. & El. Co., 1911, 7 R. C. 187, 277; City of Milwaukee v. T. M.
E. R. & L. Co., 1912, 10 R. C. 1, 122; Superior Comml. Club et al. u.
Superior W. Lt. & P. Co., 1912, 10 R. C. 704, 742; City of Green Bay v.
Green Bay Water Co., 1913, 11 R. C. 236, 243; Town of Vaughn v. Hwley
W. Co., 1914, 14 R. C. 291, 299; In re Service and Rates Stevens Pt. Ltg.
Co., 1914, 14 R. C. 350, 365; In re Appl. Ft. Atkinson W. Sc Lt. Comm.,
1913, 12 R. C. 260, 281; In re Purchase Oshkosh W. Wks. Plant, 1913,
12 R. G. 602, 664-666.
46. While the facts which have been presented indicate that the cost
of building up the business of a plant is an element that should be con-
sidered in determining its value for rate-making purposes, it is, of course,
a fact that these expenditures or deficits must be legitimate and reasonable.
They should not include items that have been incurred under other than
usual conditions, or items that could have been avoided by the exercise of
ordinary care and business judgment. Hill et al. v. Antigo W. Co., 1909,
3 R. G. 623, 715; State Journal Prtg. Co. et al. v. Madison Gas & El. Co.^
1910, 4 R. G. 501, 585-586; City of Appleton v. Appleton Water Wks. Co.,
1910, 5 R. G. 215, 278; Cunningham et al. v. Chippewa Falls W. Wks. <Sc
Ltg. Co., 1910, 5 R. G. 302, 315; City of Racine v. Racine Gas Lt. Co., 1911,
6 R. G. 228, 278; City of Beloit v. Beloit W. G. & El. Co., 1911, 7 R. G. 187,
277-278; In re Appl. Oconto City W. Supply Co., 1911, 7 R. G. 497, 513-
514; City of Waukesha v. Waukesha G. & El. Co., 1913, 13 R. G. 100, 109.
47. Going value is an element which depends upon the circumstances
in each case, and cannot be determined arbitrarily. The addition of an
Valuation. — Of property of public utilities 497
amount to cover going value depends upon the condition of the business
and not upon a rule which would give to all concerns a going value,
regardless of their financial situation. City of Appleton v. Appleton W.
Wks. Co., 1910, 5 R. C. 215, 281; In re Appl. Oconto City W. Supply Co.,
1911, 7 R. C. 497, 512; In re Purchase Janesville W. Wks. Plant, 1915,
15 R. C. 691, 692.
48. In estimating the amount for going value no allowance should
be made for deficits which were incurred under and borne by others than
the present owners, and which have been wiped out in the various trans-
fers of ownership. That these propositions are, as a rule, sound and equit-
able, appears to be so clear as to need no further argument. State Journal
Prtg. Co. V. Madison Gas & El. Co., 1910, 4 R. C. 501, 586; City of Beloit v.
Beloit W. G. & El. Co., 1911, 7 R. C. 187, 277-278.
49. What consideration should be given to losses that may be the
result of competition occurring some years after the first construction
is a matter that is not clear. In re Appl. La Crosse G. & El. Co., 1911,
8 R. C. 138, 184-185.
Cost charged to capital account.
50. When all the facts are considered, it will probably be found that
in most cases it is better to include the costs of building up the business in
the capital than to attempt to wipe them out in a comparatively brief
period through some system of amortization. These costs, as shown,
are in the nature of an investment and should therefore, it would seem,
be treated as such. They largely belong to the same class of costs as the
interest on capital and certain other items for which allowance is made
during the construction period. Hill et al. v. Antigo Water Co., 1909,
3 R. C. 623, 713.
51. When the net cost of building up the business is added to the
original capital upon which interest and profits should be earned, it
becomes a permanent charge upon the consumers. Hill et al. v. Antigo
Water Co., 1909, 3 R. C. 623, 713; Payne et al. v. Wis. Tel. Co., 1909,
4 R. C. 1, 61.
Cost charged to capital account or gradually charged
off from earnings.
52. Whether going value should be made a part of the permanent
capitalization of the plant, or provided for by means of a sinking or other
fund, is a matter to be decided on the facts in each particular case. Hill
et al. V. Antigo Water Co., 1909, 3 R. C. 623, 707; In re Menominee Sc
Marinette Lt. & Tr. Co., 1909, 3 R. C. 778, 792; Payne et al. v. Wis. Tel.
Co., 1909, 4 R. C. 1, 61; City of Ashland v. Ashland Water Co., 1909,
4 R. C. 273, 308-309; State Journal Prtg. Co. v. Madison Gas & El. Co.,
1910, 4 R. C. 501, 588, 589; City of Racine v. Racine Gas Lt. Co., 1911,
6 R. C. 228, 285; City of Beloit v. Beloit W. G. & El. Co., 1911, 7 R. C.
187, 215.
Cost gradually charged off from earnings.
53. When the net cost of building up the business is gradually
written off, it results in a high annual charge upon the present consumers,
but in a charge that will terminate when the cost has been wiped out.
498 Valuation. — Of property of public utilities
Hill et al. v. Antigo Water Co., 1909, 3 R. C. 623, 713; Payne et al. v. Wis.
Tel. Co., 1909, 4 R. C. 1, 61.
a. ELEMENTS CONSIDERED. — Continued
Going value — Net cost of building up the business — Whether an
addition to cost of reproduction new or present value.
54. Whether going value should constitute an addition to the cost
new of the property or to the value in its present condition, is a matter
which must be decided largely on the circumstances in each individual
case, or, rather, cost of reproduction new, physical value in present
condition, original investment, and going value are all elements to be
considered in ascertaining the actual value of the property. In re Appl.
Oconto City W. Supply Co., 1911, 7 R. C. 497, 515.
55. There may be a question as to whether the increment for going
value should constitute an addition to the cost new of the property or
to the value in its existing condition. If the cost new is the basis, it may
be said, in general, that the going value estimate should take into consider-
ation a rate of return which should provide only for return on property
and not for depreciation, for if the cost new is used, allowance is thereby
made in the valuation for such amount as should have been set aside to
cover depreciation. On the other hand, if the present value is used, the
rate of return which is considered in arriving at the going value must be
a rate which will cover interest and profits, and also depreciation. In
the present case it seems that the allowance for going value constitutes a
considerable addition to the existing value, but not a large increase in
the cost new. City of Janesville v. Janesville W. Co., 1911, 7 R. C. 628,
642.
Good will.
56. There may be an eleinent of good will in the business of a public
service corporation where competition exists and the public may resort
to more than one public utility for the desired service, but where the
public is confined to a single public utility for the service the latter under-
takes, it would seem that there is no ground upon which good will can be
predicated. In re Cashton Lt. Sc P. Co., 1908, 3 R. C. 67, 84-85.
57. Good will is a property right having a value for the purpose of
capitalization, but from its very nature, as well as from its legal doctrines,
it is quite clear that good will applies to competitive enterprises only.
Hill et al. v. Antigo Water Co., 1909, 3 R. C. 623, 720.^
58. Good will is an attribute of competitive business. It follows
that, where competition actually exists which is effective and controlling
in force, some allowance may have to be made for good will in determining
the value of a plant for certain purposes. Valuation for rate making is
not one of these purposes. Payne et al. v. Wis. Tel. Co., 1909, 4 R. G.
1,60.
Intangible value.
59. Generally speaking, we think that whatever "intangible" value
can be shown to exist should be provided for by a sinking fund accumu-
lated out of earnings, except in those rare cases, probably, in which the
Valuation. — Of property of public utilities 499
circumstances may make such a course of procedure commercially
inexpedient or otherwise not feasible or just. Payne et al. v. Wis. Tel.
Co., 1909, 4 R. G. 1,62.
Market value.
60. The market price of public utilities does not furnish a safe basis
for rate fixing. The market value may be based on rates that are too
high and should be reduced. For rate fixing a reasonable valuation
must be found. Hill et al. v. Antigo Water Co., 1909, 3 R. C. 623, 722.
Monopoly privilege.
61. Monopoly privileges can manifestly not be justly capitalized
as against consumers. State Journal Prtg. Co. et al. v. Madison Gas <Sc
El. Co., 1910, 4 R. C. 501, 578; In re Manitowoc W. Wks. Co., 1911,
7 R. C. 71, 105, 130.
Patent rights.
62. Respondent claimed a certain amount of value for certain patent
rights. Such rights may, undoubtedly, have values; but it would hardly
seem that such values can properly be considered as permanent capital
charges. Rights of this kind are, as a rule, secured because they are
profitable or because, in one way or another, they tend to increase the
net earnings. The prices paid for such rights would seem to be operating
expenses rather than capital charges. If regarded as capital charges at
all, they should be written off during the life of these rights from the profits
for which they are responsible. City of Milwaukee v. T. M. E. R. & L. Co.,
1912, 10 R. C. 1,92.
Physical property — In general.
63. The original cost, the cost of reconstruction new, and the present
value bear a very close relation to the physical property of the plants
and are therefore of the gpeatest importance in determining the value of
the same. As to which one of these three elements is of the greatest
importance in fixing this value, is a matter that largely depends upon the
circumstances in each case, and may also be more or less affected by the
purposes for which the valuation is intended. Hill et al. v. Antigo Water
Co., 1909, 3 R. C. 623, 631; Cunningham et al. v. Chippewa Falls W.
Wks. & Ltg. Co., 1910, 5 R. C. 302, 309.
64. Of the physical plant alone the most equitable valuation for rate-
making purposes appears to be best represented by the original cost of
the plant and by the cost of reproducing it. The original cost shows the
actual investment and is given in the construction accounts. This cost,
with the abnormal and irrelevant items, if any, eliminated or readjusted,
should represent very closely the legitimate, necessary, and therefore
the equitable cost of the physical plant. This cost should also closely
correspond to the cost of reproducing the plant new. This is especially
true when the prices and other elements entering into the cost new
represent normal prices and conditions and when the appraisal and com-
putations have been made with ordinary care. The cost of reproduction
new as thus described less depreciation, or the present value, also throws
considerable light upon the equitable cost-value of the plant. Hill et al.
V. Antigo Water Co., 1909, 3 R. C. 623, 631-694.
500 Valuation. — Of property of public utilities
a. ELEMENTS CONSIDERED. — Continued
Physical property — In general.
65. In determining the fair value of the tangible property, the total
investment in the plant at the time of appraisement, the original cost of
construction and subsequent additions and extensions, the cost of re-
production new, and the present value of the same are the only satis-
factory evidences which can be adduced bearing upon the question.
These factors form a fairly reliable basis for the deduction as to the fair
value of the physical property. However, in weighing these various
factors consideration must be given to all the facts and circumstances
surrounding the same, and neither of the factors mentioned is controlling
or determinative in reaching a final conclusion, although some may have
greater probative effect under all the circumstances than others. City of
Appleton V. Appleton Water Wks. Co., 1910, 5 R. C. 215, 219.
Average or normal costs.
66. Average or normal costs are not always easily determined, and
this for the reason that the prices of the various elements that enter into
this cost vary very greatly from time to time. Hill et al. v. Antigo Water
Co., 1909, 3 R. C. 623, 638-640.
67. Normal costs may be said to include all reasonable outlays that
are necessary to obtain a needed plant and a business for this plant.
It does not cover abnormal items such as excessive and unnecessary
charges of any kind; nor capitalized monopoly profits, future growth,
excessive development costs and other items of this nature. City of
Milwaukee v. T. M. E. R. & L. Co., 1912, 10 R. C. 1, 85.
Basis of unit prices.
68. Any fair appraisement must rest upon normal prices. Also any
measure of rates should be permanent for a reasonable length of time,
otherwise it would be entirely impracticable. • If the standard by which
the reasonableness of charges is to be determined should fluctuate with
the market prices of material, labor and land, no schedule of rates could be
established for any length of time, for, under the circumstances, a rate
that would be reasonable today might be very unreasonable tomorrow.
The principles of the law applicable- to the subject certainly involve no
such absurd consequences. City of Appleton v. Appleton Water Wks. Co.,
1910, 5 R. C. 215, 228-229; City of Racine v. Racine Gas Lt. Co., 1911,
6 R. C. 228, 238; City of Beloit v. Beloit W. G. Sc El. Co., 1911, 7 R. C.
187, 211.
69. The prices prevailing for a single year or prices based upon an
existing contract, cannot be as just as those based on an average for a
number of years. City of Whitewater v. Whitewater El. JL,t. Co., 1910,
6 R. C. 132, 139.
70. Whether the prices should be based on a ten year average,
five year, two year, or one year average, may properly be a matter for
consideration but in view of the facts as regards the variation of current
prices from month to month, it does not appear just or reasonable to
allow current prices to govern in the determination of value, either for
the purpose of sale or rate making. In re Manitowoc W. Wks. Co., 1911,
7 R. C. 71, 85.
Valuation. — Of property of public utilities 501
Cost of reproduction new.
71. We have carefully considered the matter of valuation and the
various elements that should be taken into account as decided by the
court. Our conclusion is so near to the cost of reproduction new, that
we have concluded to adopt that valuation, not because it happens to be
made on any particular basis, but because it is equivalent to a composite
value arrived at after taking into account the various elements suggested
by the court. (Smythe v. Ames, 169, U. S. 466.) Buell v. C. M. &
St. P. R. Co., 1907, 1 R. C. 324, 479-481.
72. While the cost of reproduction new is not likely to correspond
to the cost of constructing the plant, there are many reasons for believing
that the figures in the two cases are not likely to be very far apart. What-
ever difference there may be in this respect, is likely to be at least partly
due to such changes as have taken place in the prices of material and labor
between the time of construction and the time 'of appraisal. In re Appl.
Manitowoc Gas Co., 1908, 3 R. C. 163, 167.
73. The cost of reproduction new, if based upon normal prices
carefully compiled, and if, in addition to this, due consideration is given
to the various other factors that may affect the value, is likely to be of
material aid in determining a valuation of the physical property of a
plant for rate-making purposes that is fair to all concerned. In fact,
it is usually the most important factor in this connection that can be
obtained. Hill et al. v. Antigo Water Co., 1909, 3 R. C. 623, 640.
74. The cost of reproduction of the physical property of a plant,
while of the greatest importance to that end, is not the only element
that should be considered in determining the fair value when questions
of rates are involved. The cost of reproduction constitutes -^^aluable
evidence of the amount upon which investors are entitled to reasonable
returns, but it does not furnish the only evidence of this amount, even
insofar as the physical parts alone of the plants are concerned. State
Journal Prtg. Co. et al. v. Madison Gas & El. Co., 1910, 4 R. C. 501, 555.
Contingencies during construction.
See post, 103-106.
^— — Continuous construction.
75. The utility maintains that from 10 to 15 per cent should be added
to the value of the physical property because continuous construction
under contract is less expensive than piecemeal construction. Some
consideration should be given this item in determining the fair value of
the utility, but it does not seem that it can be properly considered as an
element in determining the cost of reproducing the physical plant. In re
Purchase Manitowoc El. Lt. Plant, 1914, 13 R. C. 452, 461.
Depreciation.
76. The contention of the company, that the original cost of certain
units of the plant should have been accepted by the engineers as the proper
value of the same, is without any reasonable basis for support, since
original cost and present value are not the same. In re Cashton Lt. Sc P.
Co., 1908, 3 R. C. 67, 78-79.
502 Valuation. — Of property of public utilities
a. ELEMENTS CONSIDERED.— Continued
Physical property — Cost of reproduction new — Depreciation.
77. The company's contention that because the property is a con-
tinuous property which will probably never be entirely scrapped at one
time, it should be considered that there has been no element of deprecia-
tion which should be deducted from the cost of reproduction, is not tenable.
The best evidence as to physical depreciation in the present case is the
valuation made by the engineering staff with the modification noted. In
re Purchase Janesville Water Wks. Plant, 1915, 15 R. C. 674, 695.
— — Depreciation reserve.
78. As under normal conditions investors are entitled to have their
property or investment kept intact, it follows that the amounts, which
have been properly set aside for such purposes, or for depreciation in
accordance with the provisions of the law and the rules of the Commission,
should in the instant case be included in the amount upon which returns
are allowed. On the other hand, amounts earned for depreciation but
withdrawn or used for other purposes than provided by law should not
be so included. Superior Comm^l Club et al. v. Duluth Street Ry. Co.,
1912, 11 R. C. 1, 21.
79. The failure of a utility to make allowance for depreciation if the
earnings have been sufficient is tantamount to a withdrawal of capital
from the business and the cost of reproduction new must be diminished
in determining the fair value upon which the reasonable return allowed is
to be based when an adequate reserve for depreciation has not been pro-
vided. The utility is however entitled to earn an amount sufficient to
offset future depreciation. In re Service and Rates Stevens Pt. Ltg. Co.,
1914, 14 R. C. 350, 364.
80. The effect of including in the cost new the large recent investments
in property against which practically no depreciation can yet be considered
to have accrued, will obviously be to increase the ratio between present
value and cost new. Theoretically, at least, the difference between these
values should be in the assets offsetting the depreciation reserve, in order
to preserve the property and the investments represented by it. The best
modern practice makes at least some provision in advance by building up
a depreciation reserve year by year to meet the requirements for renewals
and replacements which are very sure to become necessary sooner or later
through one cause or another. In re Invest. Ashland Water Co., 1914,
14 R. C. 1, 44, 45.
81. When large expenditures are made for renewals the following
results may actually occur. The equipment, whose replacement is im-
minent, is valued by physical appraisal methods and goes into the inven-
tory at its minimum service value. Its value, insofar as the physical
appraisal is concerned, remains at a point above the residual or scrap
value until renewal transpires. Hence, the present value of the property
as a whole is apparently higher than it would be were such equipment
considered valueless. It is clear, that in such cases the utility has the
benefit of a high present value before the replacement is made instead of
suffering a shrinkage afterward. Hood et al. v. Monroe El. Co., 1914,
14 R. C. 227, 233, 234.
Valuation. — Of property of public utilities 503
Discounts on bonds.
82. Whether discount on bonds is a legitimate cost to be included in
the cost of construction, will perhaps depend upon the circumstances in
each particular case. If the utility is needed and the capital for it can
be had on no better terms, then it is difficult to see on what ground such
discounts should not be included in the cost of the plant. To so include
it has been and is the almost universal practice. Hill et al. u. Antigo
Water Co., 1909, 3 R. C. 623, 647; City of Janesville v. Janesville W. Co.,
1911, 7 R. C. 628, 639; City of Marinette v. City Water Co. of Marinette,
1911, 8 R. C. 334, 342-343; City of Milwaukee v. T. M. E. R. Sc L. Co.,
1912, 10 R. C. 1, 155-157; Superior Comm't Club et al. v. Superior W. Lt.
& P. Co., 1912, 10 R. C. 704, 740-741, 802-803; In re Invest. Ashland Water
Co., 1914, 14 R. C. 1, 51; In re Purchase Janesville Water Wks. Plant,
1915, 15 R. C. 674, 690.
83. In some instances utilities sell their bonds above par, in other
cases, again, below par and in still other instances at par. The variation
in prices in such cases usually depends on monetary conditions and on
the rate of interest which the bonds bear. Under such conditions an
equilibrium might be established by charging the construction account
with all discounts on bonds and crediting it with all premiums above par.
Such methods of dealing with this- matter would seem fair, and there are
companies by which it has been adopted. Hill et al. v. Antigo Water Co.,
1909, 3 R. C. 623, 647.
84. Where a portion of the bond issue amounts to a refunding issue,
and a considerable part of the remaining portion takes the place of current
liabilities, it does not seem proper to include the total amount of the dis-
count on bonds in the valuation of the plant for rate-making purposes,
although some additions to the amount of the physical value should be
made because of discounts. City of Green Bay v. Green Bay W. Co., 1913,
11 R. C. 236, 253; In re Appl. Manitowoc Gas Co., 1913, 13 R. C. 325,
332-333.
Engineering,
85. The total cost of engineering to a company is likely to be lower
for extensions than for the original part of the plant, for the reason that
such extensions are often planned and supervised by the officers of the
company who are drawing regular salaries which are charged to the operat-
ing expenses. In other words, the plants are in this way extended without
any additional cost for engineering. State Journal Prtg. Co. et al. v. Mad-
ison Gas Sc El. Co., 1910, 4 R. C. 501, 541; City of Ripon v. Ripon Lt. Sz
W. Co., 1910, 5 R. G. 1, 13-14.
86. Every aggressive and progressive utility is constantly called upon
to make additions in order to adapt itself to the changing needs of the
community served. The determination of these changes is within the
legitimate scope of the general officers' duties, so that an allowance of
5 per cent on the total value can be regarded in no other light than that
of liberality. City of Ripon v. Ripon Lt. 6c W. Co., 1910, 5 R. C. 1, 14; City
of Sheboygan v. Sheboygan Ry, 6c El. Co., 1911, 6 R. C. 353, 360.
504 Valuation. — Of property of public utilities
a. ELEMENTS CONSIDERED. — Continued
Physical propierty — Cost of reproduction new — Engineering, etc.,
during construction.
See post, 103-106.
Flowage rights.
87. What value should be placed on the flowage right or what has
been spent in its development by the company, the applicant does not
show. If this flowage has a value which belongs to the applicant, and if
unavoidable expense has been borne by the applicant in developing the
flow of the river so that it may be economically used for the production
of power, then consideration should probably be given to such value or
investment to which the company is entitled. In re Appl. Red Cedar
Valley EL Co., 1911, 6 R. C. 717, 723.
Free house piping.
88. Expenditures for the development of the business, such as free
house piping, when reasonable and when well placed, would seem to be
legitimate and to constitute a charge that, in some form, should be borne
by the customers or by those who avail themselves of the services in ques-
tion. Whether these expenditures should be charged to construction and
thereby become a permanent charge on the consumers, or be charged to
the operating expenses, and thereby be wiped out about as incurred, are
questions that cannot be settled independently of the surrounding con-
ditions. State Journal Prtg. Co. et al. v. Madison Gas <Sc El. Co., 1910, 4
R. C. 501, 589; Superior Comm'l Club et al. v. Superior W. Lt. & P. Co.,
1912, 10 R. C. 704, 736-737.
Improved facilities.
89. It appears that the so-called "booster system," a system of high
pressure transmission of gas devised by the respondent in the instant case
and installed by it in place of the ordinary low pressure system previously
used, has resulted in some saving of investment for the utility. It seems
reasonable that the unusual skill and foresight exercised by the utility
should receive some reward. It is doubtful, however, if the entire esti-
mated saving should accrue to the utility, for the consumer would thereby
be denied any share in the progress of the industry. City of Milwaukee v.
Milwaukee Gas. Lt. Co., 1913, 12 R. C. 441, 453-454.
Interest during construction.
See also post, 103-106.
90. Interest on the cost during the period of construction would seem
to be one of the necessary elements that should be included in the total
cost of the plant. This cost is recognized as one of the regular expenses,
not only of construction work during the construction period, but of
operation after the plant has begun to do business. It is an item that
cannot be eliminated from any undertaking where money or capital is
needed. Hill et al. v. Antigo Water Co., 1909, 3 R. C. 623, 646.
91. The element of interest during construction, theoretically, is the
current rate for the use of each item of the outlays during the time which
intervenes between each such outlay and the date of the completion of the
Valuation. — Of property of public utilities 505
plant up to the point of operation. The sum of these charges, however,
is the minimum amount that should be allowed as interest during construc-
tion. State Journal Prtg. Co. et al. v. Madison Gas & El. Co., 1910, 4 R. C.
501, 543; City ofRiponv. Ripon Lt. <Sc W. Co., 1910, 5 R. C. 1, 14-15.
——— — — Investment for anticipated needs.
92. From the facts brought out it is quite clear that the investment
in the physical property of the plant is both actually and relatively
somewhat greater than the amount that is ordinarily required for such
demands upon the plants as are made by its customers in this case. In
fact, the situation in this respect is such that it is far from clear whether
it would be equitable to all concerned to fix rates in this case, the receipts
from which will cover operating expenses, and, in addition to this, a
return for interest, profit and depreciation on the entire cost of reproduction
of the plant at as high rates as those which might ordinarily be regarded
as adequate in cities of this size. This statement is made advisedly,
for it is obvious that operators are entitled to reasonable latitudes in
such matters and that it is sometimes exceedingly difficult to accurately
determine future demands. Cily of Racine v. Racine Gas Lt. Co., 1911,
6 R. C. 228, 286.
93. In determining the basis for reasonable rates some consideration
should be given as to the investment necessary for an adequate plant.
What may appear to be reasonable rates when the investment line has
fallen below the business line, may prove to be much lower than sufficient
to produce a revenue which will give a reasonable return upon the invest-
ment a year or a few years later when the investment will have to be
materially increased in order to meet the demands of the business. (City
of Beloit V. Beloit W. G. & El. Co., 1911, 7 R. C. 187, 298.) It does not
appear equitable, however, to make present consumers bear the entire
burden of future additions. It appears proper to make slight additions
to the unit costs, but proper allowances must necessarily be made for
such additonal business which is anticipated when the extension is made.
Superior Comm'l Club et al. v. Superior W. Lt. Sc P. Co., 1912, 10 R. G.
704, 749-750.
Land.
94. The law as well as our sbcial system recognizes gains due to
appreciation in practically all other undertakings and the. owners would
have to bear losses in case land and other property had depreciated
instead of appreciated. It would seem only just that the rule should
work both ways. State Journal Prtg. Co. v. Madison G. Sc El. Co., 1910,
4 R. C. 501, 579; Superior Comml. Club et al. v. Superior W. Lt. <& P. Co.,
1912,. 10 R. G. 704, 739.
95. As a basis of valuation for rate adjustments, special or additional
value cannot be assigned to a piece of land upon which the utility wells are
located because of the proximity of the underground stream to the surface
of the land and consequent reduced excavation necessary, where a large
portion of the preliminary work for the location of such favorable land
has been paid for by the city and the land purchased in the open market
and without competition. The utility should not be permitted to attach
a special value for capital purposes to expenditures which represent no
506 Valuation. — Of property of public utilities
more than the expression of that reasonable intelUgence and good judgment
of utihty officers and directors which the stockholders and the public
have a right to expect. City of Rip on v. Ripon Lt. Sc W. Co., 1910, 5 R. C.
1, 12-13.
a. ELEMENTS CONSIDERED. — Continued
Physical property — Cost of reproduction new — Land.
96. If real estate has enhanced to such an extent that a return upon
its value would be in excess of the reasonable value of the use for the
purposes to which it is devoted, the excess value should be treated as
surplus and not as a part of the investment upon which the public is
required to compensate the owner for the service of the property. (Spring
Valley Water Co. v. San Francisco, 1908, 165, Fed. 667; Capital City Gas
Light Co. v. Des Moines, 1896, 72 Fed. 829, 844; Boise City I & L. Co. v.
Clark, 1904, 131 Fed. 415; Cons. Gas Co. v. New York, 1907, 157 Fed.
849, 854; Wilcox v. Consolidated Gas Co., 1909, 212 U. S. 52.) City of
Appleton V. Appleton Water Wks. Co., 1910, 5 R. C. 215, 224-225.
97. It does not seem clear that the lands granted for right of way
purposes should be considered in the establishment of a fair value of
respondent's plant and business as a basis for rates. The facts at the
present time seem to indicate that to allow a return on any value which
may be placed upon these grants would hardly be fair. Superior Comml.
Club et al. v. Duluth Street Ry. Co., 1912, 11 R. C. 1, 15-16.
Legal services, etc., during construction.
See post, 103-106.
Losses of purely physical value due to consolidations.
98. The applicant contended that increased valuation is justified in
cases where competing utilities consolidate and thus secure cheaper
operating conditions because severe losses of purely physical value in-
evitably occur in making such consolidations. This contention seems to
rest upon the assumption that all physical construction costs and all costs
of operation are proper elements upon which rates should be predicated,
and that a utility is unquestionably entitled to a return for all its operating
expenses and earnings on at least the reconstruction cost. While this
assumption is in the main true under normal conditions, if the costs of
operation are high because of unusual inefficiency of operation or if the
investment is high because of equipment and work clearly unnecessary,
it is apparent that equitable rates cannot be based thereon. In re Appl.
La Crosse G. & El Co., 1911, 8 R. C. 138, 171-174.
Meters.
99. The mere fact that the meters in this instance register in dollars
and cents instead of in cubic feet, cannot be regarded as a valid reason
for excluding them from the valuation. City of Ripon v. Ripon Lt. & W.
Co., 1910, 5 R. C. 1, 12.
Nonoperating property.
100. Property that is no longer used or useful for service must be
eliminated from the valuation. The statute limits the scope of the
investigation to ascertaining the value of the active property of the
Valuation. — Of property of public utilities 507
utility. (Wis. Stats., sec. 1797/7?-5.) City of Appleton v. Appleton Water
Wks. Co., 1910, 5 R. C. 215, 240; In re Appl. Darlington El. Lt. Sc W. P.
Co., 1910, 5 R. C. 397, 406.
101. Under certain circumstances, where equipment not actively
part of the producing plant has been retained to serve as emergency or
reserve units, it would seem proper to include this amount as part of the
property used and useful in the furnishing of public service. In re Appl.
Darlington El. Lt. <k W. P. Co., 1910, 5 R. C. 397, 406.
102. When nonoperating property may be disposed of without
affecting the business, the only warrant for its retention is expected
savings and additional net income. This being the case, an addition to
the physical value of the plant for nonoperating property can be justified
for rate-making purposes only when the income expected therefrom is
added to the actual income or is deducted from the operating expenses.
In re Appl. La Crosse G. & El. Co., 1911, 8 R. C. 138, 164-165.
Overhead expenses.
103. The amount for a percentage allowance to cover interest during
construction, engineering contingencies, etc. has frequently been made a
matter of dispute and is a controverted point in the present case. In
previous decisions as to the appraised value of property involved in cases
relating to compensation at time of purchase, valuation for stocks and
bonds and for reasonable rates, the addition has not exceeded 12 per cent
of the priced inventory. {Hill et al. v. Antigo W. Co., 1909, 3 R. C.
623, 685; State Journal Prtg. Co. v. Madison G. & El. Co., 1909, 4 R. C.
501, 540; In re Fond du Lac W. Co., 1910, 5 R. C. 482, 500.) In
general this percentage consists of four items: 4 per cent for engineering
and superintendence; 2 per cent for organization and legal expenses;
3 per cent for interest during construction, and 3 per cent for contingencies.
City of Milwaukee v. T. M. E. R. <Sc L. Co., 1912, 10 R. C. 1, 118-119.
104. The ordinary allowance is 12 per cent, but experience has shown
that in the case of municipal plants less is required for these purposes,
and the facts would indicate that even less than 10 per cent was required
in the present case. Dick et al. v. Madison Water Comm., 1910, 5 R. G.
731, 744.
105. Twelve per cent added to cover overhead expenses. City of
Ripon V. Ripon Lt. & W. Co., 1910, 5 R. C. 1, 15. City of Racine v. Racine
Gas Lt. Co., 1911, 6 R. G. 228, 243; City of Sheboygan v. Sheboygan Ry. Sz
El. Co., 1911, 6 R. C. 353, 360; In re Manitowoc W. Wks. Co., 1911,
7 R. C. 71, 88; City of Beloit v. Beloit W. G. & El. Co., 1911, 7 R. C. 187,
237; In re Appl. La Crosse Gas & El. Co., 1911, 8 R. C. 138, 157-159.
106. Fifteen per cent added to cover overhead expenses. In re
Purchase Oshkosh W. Wks. Plant, 1913, 12 R. G. 602, 607, 661; In re Appl.
Manitowoc Gas Co., 1913, 13 R. G. 325, 332; In re Invest. Ashland Water
Co., 1914, 14 R. G. 1, 40; 721, 733.
aving.
107. No allowance should be made for an item of paving, which may
be properly a part of the cost of reproduction new, but which is not a part
of the company's property devoted to the public use, for the reason that
the company did not actually cut through this paving in constructing its
508 Valuation. — Of property of public utilities _^
system. Insofar as paving has actually been cut through in making re-
pairs, extensions or renewals, and the expense of this cutting has not been
previously charged to other accounts, it may properly be included in a
valuation of the property. {Cedar Rapids Gaslight Co. v. Cedar Rapids
et al 1909, 120 N. W. fla.] 966, 970.) City of Ashland v. Ashland Water
Co., 1909, 4 R. C. 273, 307; State Journal Prtg. Co. et al. v. Madison Gas
& El. Co., 1910, 4 R. C. 501, 554-555; City of Ripon v. Ripon Lt. 6c W.
Co., 1910, 5 R. C. 1, 10; City of Appleton v. Appleton Water Wks. Co.,
1910, 5 R. C. 215, 275; Cunningham et al. v. Chippewa Falls W. Wks. &
Ltg. Co., 1910, 5 R. G. 302, 316-317; In re Fond du Lac Water Co., 1910,
5R. C. 482, 492-493; In re Appleton Water Wks. Co., 1910, 6 R. C. 97,
121-122; City of Racine v. Racine Gas Lt. Co., 1911, 6 R. G. 228, 240, 241;
In re Manitowoc W. Wks. Co., 1911, 7 R. G. 77, 88-89; City of Beloit v.
Beloit W. G. & EL Co., 1911, 7 R. G. 187, 233; City of Neenah v. Wis.
Tr. Lt. Ht. & P. Co., 1911, 7 R. G. 477, 480; In re Appl. La Crosse G. Sc
El. Co., 1911, 8 R. G. 138, 162-163; City of Milwaukee v. T. M. E. R. & L.
Co., 1912, 10 R. G. 1, 115-116; Meyer et al. v. Sheboygan G. Lt. Co., 1913,
11 R. G. 309, 312; City of Milwaukee v. Milwaukee G. Lt. Co., 1913, 12
R. G. 441, 453; In re Purchase Oshkosh W. Wks. Plant, 1913, 12 R. G.
602, 662; City of Waukesha v. Waukesha G. & El. Co., 1913, 13 R. G. 100,
104-105; In re Service of T. M. E. R. Sc L. Co. in Milwaukee, 1913, 13
R. G. 178. 233; In re Invest. Ashland Water Co., 1914, 14 R. G. 1, 38.
a. ELEMENTS CONSIDERED. — Continued
Physical property — Cost of reproductioil new — Piecemeal con-
struction.
108. While there are conditions which tend to increase the cost under
piecemeal construction, there also appear to be certain factors which may
have the opposite effect. State Journal Prtg. Co. et al. v. Madison Gas Sc
El Co., 1910, 4 R. G. 501, 549; City of Beloit v. Beloit W. G. Sc EL Co.,
1911, 7 R. G. 187, 241.
— Property acquired through gift.
109. The law requires the Gommission to value all the property used
and useful for the convenience of the public. It says nothing about de-
ducting the value of the property owned by a company, but originally
donated to it. For purposes of proceedings like those herein, the Utilities
Law does not inquire into the manner in which property of utility corpora-
tions devoted to the public use was originally obtained, whether by pur-
chase, inheritance, gift or theft. The law simply compels the Gommission
to value this property, and to consider this valuation in taking ofTicial
action with respect to rates and service. Tighe et al. v. Clinton Tel. Co.,
1908, 3 R. G. 117, 126; City of Ashland v. Ashland Water Co., 1909, 4 R. G.
273, 306; City of Appleton v. Appleton Water Wks. Co., 1910, 5 R. G. 215,
239.
Service connections.
110. The contention that the service connections, the cost of which
had been met by the consumers, should not be included in the value of the
plant, would seem to be well taken. It would hardly be fair to make the
consumers pay interest and perhaps other costs on property for which
Valuation. — Of property of public utilities 509
they had met all the charges. Hill et al. v. Antigo Water Co., 1909, 3 R. G.
623, 693; City of Ashland v. Ashland Water Co., 1909, 4 R. C. 273, 305-
306; City of Washburn v. Washburn W. Wks. Co., 1910, 6 R. C. 74, 92;
City ofBeloit v. Beloit W. G. Sc El. Co., 1911, 7 R. C. 187, 215; Alter et al. v.
City of Manitowoc, 1912, 10 R. C. 387, 394; In re Appl. Columbus W. &
Lt. Comm., 1913, 11 R. G. 449, 452; In re Invest. Ashland Water Co., 1914,
14 R. G. 721, 731.
111. We do not believe that expenditures made for service connections
and paid for by the respondent should be excluded from the valuation and
do not find that the title of the respondent to such services is inconsistent
with the separate ownership of the premises in which the services were
constructed, wholly or in part. City of Ripon v. Ripon Lt. <Sc W. Co.,
1910, 5 R. G. 1, 11: City of Beloit v. Beloit W. G. Sz El. Co., 1911, 7 R. G.
187, 222; City of Janesville v. Janesville W. Co., 1911, 7 R. G. 628, 636;
Alter et al. v. City of Manitowoc, 1912, 10 R. G. 387, 394.
Superintendence.
See also ante, 103-106.
112. In giving the financial condition of its plant to show valuation
the respondent included an item for manager's salary which was not in
fact paid. The operating ratio of the plant as compared with other plants
{City of Ashland v. Ashland Water Co., 1909, 4 R. G. 273, 282)
suggests that a suflficiently large sum has been charged for management.
There is nothing in the testimony to show that the persons regularly
employed were not fully competent to operate the plant without any
additional superintendence, nor that the amount so charged is not gener-
ally sufficient to secure whatever managerial ability is required in the opera-
tion of a plant of this size. The additional item, which was not in fact paid,
is therefore excluded from all calculations of the Gommission regarding
the financial results of operation of respondent's plant. City of Washburn
V. Washburn W. Wks. Co., 1910, 6 R. G. 74, 81-82.
Working capital.
113. Something in the way of working capital, is always required by
public utilities. If it is not owned by the company, it must be oflset by
credits or money borrowed. In either case the working capital constitutes
a part of the cost of operation and must therefore be considered in determ-
ining the value of the plant for rate-making purposes. Hill et al. v. Antigo
Water Co., 1909, 3 R. G. 623, 691; In re Menominee and Marinette Lt. &
Tr. Co., 1909, 3 R. G. 778, 799; State Journal Prtg. Co. et al. v. Madison
Gas Sc El. Co., 1910, 4 R. G. 501, 551-552; Cunningham et al. v. Chippewa
Falls W. Wks. & Lt. Co., 1910, 5 R. G. 302, 316; City of Beloit v. Beloit
W. G. & El. Co., 1911, 7 R. G. 187, 2^2; ^ Superior Comm'l Club et al. v.
Superior W. Lt. & P. Co., 1912, 10 R. G. 704, 745-747; City of Green Bay v.
Green Bay W. Co., 1913, 11 R. G. 236, 242; Meyer et al. v. Sheboygan G.
Lt. Co., 1913, 11 R. G. 309, 313; In re Invest. Ashland Water Co., 1914,
14 R. G. 721, 734.
1 14. Where collections are made quarterly" a rather large amount of
working capital is usually necessary. City of Green Bay v. Green Bay W.
Co., 1913. 11 R. G. 236, 253-254.
510 Valuation. — -Of property of public utilities
a. ELEMENTS CONSIDERED.— Continued
Physical property — Cost of reproduction ne^v — Working capital.
115. Where the current is purchased, large generating expenses such
as coal and labor are eliminated, reducing the amount of capital .which it
is necessary to have available. This is also true of power plant supplies.
In re Service and Rates Stevens Pt. Ltg. Co., 1914, 14 R. C. 350, 364.
116. The electric railway is unlike the water, gas, and telephone utihty
in that it has no monthly bills but receives a large portion of its transporta-
tion revenues daily. The electric railway also has the advantage of sell-
ing a part of its transportation service in advance in the form of blocks
of tickets or mileage books. The money as received is at the company's
disposal as working capital prior to the time when it is necessary for cur-
rent expenses. City of Milwaukee v. T. M. E. R. & L. Co., 1912, 10 R. G.
1, 157-158; Superior Comm'l Club et al. v. Duluth Street Ry. Co., 1912,
11 R. C. 1, 21-22.
Original cost.
117. The original cost is an important item in the valuation of public
utilities. When it includes only proper charges, and when there have been
no unnecessary wastes or mistakes of such character that no one but the
owners should be held responsible for them, then the original cost of con-
struction would seem to represent the investment that has been made in
the physical property of the plant. Investments, made under such condi-
tions are certainly entitled to a great deal of consideration, especially
when the plants are valued for rate-making purposes. Hill et al. v. Antigo
Water Co., 1909, 3 R. C. 623, 631-632; State Journal Prtg. Co. et al. v.
Madison Gas & El. Co., 1910, 4 R. C. 501, 557, 558; City of Racine v.
Racine Gas Lt. Co., 1911, 6 R. C. 228, 285; In re Manitowoc W. Wks. Co.,
1911, 7 R. C. 71, 74; City of Beloit v. Beloit W. G. & El. Co., 1911, 7 R. C.
187, 354; In re Appl. La Crosse G. & EL Co., 1911, 8 R. C. 138, 170-171;
In re Purchase Manitowoc El. Lt. Plant, 1914, 13 R. C. 452, 461-462.
s 118. As a basis for computing the additional interest charges the cost
of reproduction new seems inequitable in view of the fact that the more
valuable part of the city's property outside its limits was turned over to it
without charge by the consumers served. It does not seem just for the
city to charge interest on that part of the property which was obtained
gratis from consumers affected. The additional interest allowance on the
property outside the city has accordingly been computed upon a valuation
based on the cost incurred by the city in acquiring its lines outside the
limits. Hill et al. v. Antigo Water Co., 1909, 3 R. C. 623, 693; City of Ripon
v. Ripon Lt. Sc W. Co., 1910, 5 R. C. 1, 11 ; In re Appl. Ft. Atkinson W. Sc
Lt. Comm., 1913, 12 R. C. 260, 299-300.
Present value.
119. While the cost of reproduction new is ordinarily one of the. im-
portant, if not the most important, elements that enter into that valuation
upon which the earnings should be based, there may also be instances when
the cost of reproduction new less depreciation, which represents the present
value of public utilities, may bear a close relation to the valuation in ques-
tion. Hill et al. v. Antigo Water Co., 1909, 3 R. G. 623, 640-641.
Valuation. — Of property of public utilities 511
120. In the appraisal of all property which is subject to deterioration
with use, it is necessary not only to determine the cost of reproduction,
but also its value as it exists at the date of appraisal, or, in other words,
its present or existing value. City of Beloit v. Beloit W. G. Sc El. Co., 1911,
7 R. C. 187, 235.
— — As affected by depreciation from crenothrix.
121. It would appear that the presence of crenothrix and its probable
future increase are elements properly considered in determining the value
of the utility for rate-making purposes. City of Beloit v. Beloit W. G. <Sc
El. Co., 1911, 7 R. C. 187, 299.
Reorganization expenses.
122. In the present case reorganization expenses received considera-
tion in the appraisal. Superior Comm'l Club et al. v. Superior W. Lt. &
P. Co., 1912, 10 R. G. 704, 739.
Taxable value.
123. The appraised value for purposes of taxation may lead to errone-
ous conclusions when used as a basis for rate making. Such values are
frequently based upon net earnings or the ability of the company to carry
a portion of the general burden of taxation and involve a capitalization
of net profits, even though such profits arise from excessive rates. City
of Milwaukee v. T. M. E. R. Sc L. Co., 1912, 10 R. C. 1, 63-64.
Unearned increment.
124. It is true that such elements of value as the natural increase in
the value of land and such increases in other property as may be caused
by rising prices of labor and material, may not be offset by actual outlays
on the part of the owners of such plants; that to include such items in the
valuation may, in a sense, amount to a capitalization of unearned incre-
ments; and that there may be some question as to whether this is equitable
as between company and consumers. There is much, however, to be said
on the other side of this question. That the law as well as our social system
recognizes such gains in practically all other undertakings, is evident from
the fact that rents and interest charges usually vary with the natural
increase in the value of the property they cover. As the cost of reproduc-
tion of a plant usually plays perhaps the most important part in determin-
ing its value, it is more than likely that the owners would have to bear
losses in case land and other property had depreciated instead of appreci-
ated. It would seem only just that the rule should work both ways. State
Journal Prtg. Co. et al. v. Madison Gas Sc El. Co., 1910, 4 R. G. 501, 579.
125. If real estate has enhanced to such an extent that a return upon
its value would be in excess of the reasonable value of the use for the pur-
poses to which it is devoted, the excess value should be treated as surplus
and not as a part of the investment upon which the pubhc is required to
compensate the owner for the service of the property. {Spring Valley Water
Co. V. San Francisco, 1908, 165 Fed. 667; Capital City Gas Light Co. v.
Des Moines, 1896, 72 Fed. 829, 844; Boise City I. Sc L. Co. v. Clark 1904.
131 Fed. 415; Cons. Gas Co. v. New York, 1907, 157 Fed. 849, 854;
Wilcox V. Consolidated Gas Co., 1909, 212 U. S. 52. City of Appleton v.
Appleton Water Wks. Co., 1910, 5 R. C. 215, 224-225.
512 Valuation. — Of property of public utilities
a. ELEMENTS CONSIDERED. — Continued
Unpaid rent on water power lease.
126. It is contended that the unpaid rent due upon a water power
lease held by the utiUty should be included in the compensation fixed by
the Commission as a part of the value of the lease. The indebtedness in
question was an obligation of the utility and the city was authorized to
acquire only the property of the company actually used and useful for the
convenience of the public. The utility can have no property in its debts.
In re AppL Kaukauna G. EL Lt. & P. Co., 1913, 12 R. C. 189, 191.
Water power rights.
127. That, as a rule, water powers have some value that should be
considered in appraisals of the kind in question here, may be admitted,
but there are wide differences of opinion as to what these values amount
to. Ross et al. v. Burkhardt Milling cfc El. P. Co., 1910, 5 R. C. 139, 146.
128. The title of the owners in utility business to the entire savings
due to use of water power instead of steam power has not been clearly
demonstrated. To preclude the public from any share in economical meth-
ods of service and to place upon consumers the burden of maximum costs
of operation results in costs that are not dependent upon reasonable effici-
ency, normal investments and local advantages. The welfare of the utility
requires that mutual benefit arise from supplying the public from natural
power. City of Rhinelander v. Rhinelander Llg. Co. 1912, 9 R. G. 406,
424, 426; In re AppL Rhinelander P. Co., 1915, 15 R. C. 783, 809.
b. METHODS OF APPRAISAL.
Determination of earning value.
129. Earning values are usually determined by capitalizing net earn-
ings, or by comparisons, which amount to about the same thing, and such
values can hardly be equitable for rate-making purposes. Hill et al. v.
Antigo Water Co., 1909, 3 R. C. 623, 717.
Determination of going value.
130. In estimating going value it may be considered as consisting of
all net losses on operation, less the offsets for years showing surpluses,
that have been incurred since the plant was completed and ready for
service. Hill et al. v. Antigo Water Co., 1909, 3 R. C. 623, 707, 727, 744-
745; Citij of Milwaukee v. T. M. E. R. & L. Co., 1912, 10 R. C. 1, 123, 130;
City of Milwaukee v. Milwaukee Gas Lt. Co., 1913, 12 R. C. 441, 462.
131. Engineers have endeavored to measure the demerit of '"going
value" in various ways, all of which tend to enlighten the judgment, al-
though none of the methods employed are conclusive. In re Cashton
Light & Power Co. ,190S, 3 R.C.e>7,8A-95; In re Appleton Water Wks. Co.,
1910, 6 R. C. 97, 120.
132. The methods to be followed in fixing the allowance which should
be made for going value have not been very definitely fixed. In general,
however, it may be said that there are two methods which have been used
to a considerable extent. 1. The determination of the extent to which
losses have actually been incurred in building up the business in question.
2. The cost of reproduction of the business. City of Green Bay v. Green
Bay W. Co., 1913, 11 R. C. 236, 243.
Valuation. — Of property of public utilities 513
133. Aside from an arbitrary percentage which must have some basis
in fact, the measure of going value must be made either upon the basis
of cost or upon the basis of an estimate of a reproductive value. Upon the
basis of cost, instances frequently occur where past surpluses have offset
and wiped out past losses. Upon the basis of a reproduced plant a going
value will be developed in every case dependent largely upon the liberality
of the estimate. City of Milwaukee v. T. M. E. R. Sc L. Co., 1912, 10 R. C.
1, 151.
134. The comparative plant method of estimating going value is a
continuation of the appraisal or cost of reproduction theory of value and
is based upon the assumption that an identical utility property shall have
been reprc^duced at the present time, and estimates the expenditures
probably made before the hypothetical or comparative plant shall have
been placed upon an earning basis identical with the present property.
The comparative plant basis is open to the objection that it is based upon
a large number of varying assumptions, involving practically every factor
in the calculation. City of Milwaukee v. T. M. E. R. <Sc L. Co., 1912, 10
R. C. 1, 155; City of Green Bay v. Green Bay W. Co., 1913, 11 R. C. 236,
244; In re Purchase Antigo W. Go's Plant, 1913, 13 R. C. 156, 164; City
of Milwaukee v. Milwaukee Gas Lt. Co., 1913, 12 R. C. 441, 458.
135. It is true that Mr. Alvord's method may be of use in determining
the value of a property for purchase where regulation does not exist,
but it is not a proper basis for a rate-making determination. Under regula-
tion rates must be such as to yield to the investor a return upon the invest-
ment used in supplying this service. This investment consists of the actual
physical property together with the necessary costs of developing the busi-
ness up to the time when it becomes profitable. City of Milwaukee v.
Milwaukee Gas Lt. Co., 1913, 12 R. G. 441, 459.
136. The cost basis of estimating going value has been variously
criticised, by many upon the ground that its estimates are too liberal,
by others that it results in negative values and takes recognition of the
utility's past financial history. Its obvious merit lies in the fact that it
assumes that the relations of users and utility have at all times been
placed upon an equitable basis. City of Milwaukee v. T. M. E. R. &
L. Co., 1912, 10 R. G. 1, 123, 154; City of Green Bay v. Green Bay Water Co.,
1913, 11 R. G. 236, 243-244.
137. The early losses or deficits, or the amounts by which the earnings
of the plant have failed to meet the ordinary operating expenses, taxes,
deprecialiou, and a reasonable return on the investment, will, in the ma-
jority of cases, very closely measure the cost of deyeloping the business.
Deficits from operation, however, cannot equitably be taken into account
in the appraisals of plants regardless of the conditions under which they
were incurred. Deficits due to abnormal conditions, bad management,
poor judgment, extravagance, lack of ordinary care and foresight, and
extremely high capital charges, etc., it is clear, should receive very little
consideration. Nor does it seem clear that losses due to lack of growth
or retrogression of community development should be charged in their
entirety against the consumers, even though the sacrifices of
the owners have been prudently made. Returns upon such total
costs may result in rates not reasonably within the value of the product
17
514 Valuation. — Of property of public utilities
or service to the user. Appleton v. Appleton W. Wks. Co., 1910, 5 R. G.
215, 276; Cunningham et al. v. Chippewa Falls W. Wks. & Lt. Co., 1910, 5
R. G. 302, 314; City of Milwaukee v. T. M. E. R. <Sc L. Co. et al, 1912,
10 R. G. 1, 122; Superior Comm'l Club et al. v. Superior W. Lt. Sc P. Co.,
1912, 10 R. G. 704, 742-744, 803.
h. METHODS OF APPRAISAL. — Continued
Determination of going value.
138. When the proper records were available the Gommission has
frequently determined the cost of developing business from the actual
records of the utility. City of Milwaukee v. Milwaukee G. Lt. Co., 1913,
12 R. G. 441, 459.
139. In determining going value it is not certain that the full extent of
the losses incurred by a utility should be accepted as a cost of developing the
business, for losses may be due to causes for other than the actual develop-
mental costs. In re Purchase Antigo W. Co's Plant, 1913, 13 R. G. 156, 163.
140. With respect to going value it is doubtful if full allowance could
be made for losses incurred in developing and retaining business under
competitive conditions. These losses might, however, be given some
consideration if suitable reductions are made from the cost of the physical
property on account of the duplication caused by competition. In re
Invest. El. Rates in Oconto, 1913, 12 R. G. 584, 590.
Determination of the total value of the plant and its business.
141. When the accounts or records of a plant are missing or too
incomplete for use, the reascnnble cost of the plant and of its business
must be found largely through their cost of reproduction. For the
physical parts of the plant this cost new, as well as the present value, is
usually determined by a detailed inventory and appraisal of the physical
property. For the business of the plant the cost in question is ordinarily
obtained through similar inquiries into all the operating data and condi-
tions of the plant as well as for other plants for which similar conditions
obtain. Hill el al. v. Antigo Water Co., 1909, 3 R. G. 623, 748.
142. When accounts and records of a plant have been carefully kept,
the normal cost of the plant itself as well as of its business may be obtained
from these records. Hill et al. v. Antigo Water Co., 1909, 3 R. G. 623, 748.
143. A method of valuation which has long received the favorable
consideration of the courts as one of the reasonable methods to be applied
■ when possible is not to be condemned simply because in certain cases it
may have been misapplied and extravagant results obtained through its
misapplication. The theory of measuring value by actual investment does
not contemplate the substitution of estimates of cost of reproduction in
place of the original and actual costs. In re Invest. Ashland Water Co.,
1914, 14 R. G. 721, 726.
144. The value of the various elements, which should be considered
in the appraisal of public utilities for rate-making purposes, may be
determined in various ways, but the methods which were employed for
this purpose in the case of Hill et al. v. Antigo Water Co., 1909, 3 R. G.
623, 738, would seem to be as practical as any that could have been
conveniently employed. State Journal Prtg. Co. et al. v. Madison Gas Sc
El. Co., 1910, 4 R. G. 501, 580.
Valuation. — Of property of public utilities 515
Delermiiiation of the value of the physical properly of the plant —
Cost of reproduction new.
145. Where it is impracticable to determine what the actual cost of
the physical property has been, the only method of arriving at the value
of that property is to ascertain the cost of reproduction. City of Green
Bay V. Green Bay W. Co., 1913, 11 R. C. 236, 244.
146. In determining the cost of reproduction of a plant, a great deal
of engineering work and skill is required. To begin with, it is necessary
to obtain a complete inventory of the physical property. The next step
consists in finding a suitable price per unit, not only of each class of prop-
erty, but of the labor and material required in placing it in its proper place
or position. In addition to this it is also necessary to ascertain the time
required for construction, in order that interest upon the cost during
the construction period may be estimated, the probable cost of engineering,
superintendence, insurance, and various other factors. The sum of the
cost of all of these elements is usually said to constitute the cost of repro-
duction new. Hill et al. v. Aniigo Wafer Co., 1909, 3 R. C. 623, 636.
147. It is usually possible to find approximately what constitutes a
reasonable investment in the plant from the figures showing the cost of
reproduction new, when these have been carefully computed and are
based on normal conditions. In re Menominee Sc Marinette Lt. Sc Tr. Co.,
1909, 3 R. C. 778, 791.
148. Whether the proper method of physical valuation represents the
cost of replacing units identical with those in the existing system, or
merely the cost of replacing the units in the existing system .with
equivalent units was a question involved in the proper value assignable
to a number of items. Neither method is final as determining the cost
new or present value of the property. Both may be of evidentiary value
in the determination of actual fair value of the property, and when, as in
the present case, there is nothing, to indicate that the original investment
was unwisely made, it seems only reasonable to accept as evidence bearing
upon their value as a part of the plant to be transferred the actual cost
of the items, or the cost of replacing them by identical units. In re
Purchase Janesville Water Wks. Plant, 1915, 15 R. C. 674, 685, 686.
Land.
149. In fixing values on the land in the case under consideration, the
method of averages was employed. Under this method the average
value per unit is found by taking the average assessed value per acre
or other unit of several selected similarly situated tracts, and applying the
percentage of assessed value to the average bona fide sale value during a
recent period, either the past year or past five years, as determined by
the state board of assessment for the assessment district in which the
land in question is situated. This gives the average value per unit. If
the land in question involves the acquisition of a number of separately
owned parcels, 10 per cent may be added on this account. State Journal
Prtg. Co. et al. v. Madison Gas & EL Co., 1910, 4 R. G. 501, 510-511;
In re Manitowoc W. Wks. Co., 1911, 7 R. C. 71, 77.
150. The Commission has based the values placed by it on the land
involved upon information with respect to sales of land in the immediate
516 Valuation. — Of property of public utilities
vicinity under substantially similar conditions as modified by other
information at its command, and by personal inspection. In re Purchase
Oshkosh W. Wks. Plant, 1913, 12 R. C. 602, 616.
b. METHODS OF APPRAISAL. — Continued
Determination of the value of the physical property of the plant
— Cost of reproduction new — Land.
151. The price placed on land by the tax assessor is not a satisfactory
measure of value, for the reason that it attempts not to show the full
value, but to maintain a just proportionate value between different
pieces and classes of property. In re Purchase Manitowoc El. Lt. Plant,
1914, 13 R. G. 452, 455.
Obsolete equipment.
152. In obtaining the cost of reproducing equipment which is no
longer on the market, consideration must be given to the cost new of
modern equipment, designed to do the same work. The present value,
however, of obsolete equipment, which is still in use and rendering fair
service, would seem to be something above scrap value. In re Purchase
Manitowoc El. Lt. Plant, 1914, 13 R. C. 452, 458.
Piecemeal construction.
153. In appraising utilities which have been constructed on a
piecemeal basis, the problem seems to be to find units of cost that represent
a fair average of these conditions. To find such units appears to be
practicable. In fact, it would seem that the extra costs of piecemeal
construction can be more readily and accurately taken into account in
this manner than by an arbitrary allowance of a lump sum to be added to
a cost that has originally been computed upon the basis of continuous
construction. State Journal Prtg. Co. et al. v. Madison Gas & EL Co.,
1910, 4 R. C. 501, 548-549.
Prices applied in determining cost. ,
154. In determining the cost of reproduction, general prices would
seem to be more applicable than cost prices. Hill et al. v. Antigo Water
Co., 1909, 3 R. C. 623, 684; In re Purchase Antigo Water Plant, 1913,
13 R. C. 156, 160.
155. We cannot see how a figure based on a flat price per mile can
represent the cost of reproducing the system under consideration, except
in a rough way which is not at all satisfactory for the purpose at hand.
In re Purchase Manitowoc El. Lt. Plant, 1914, 13 R. C. 452, 456.
156. The valuations made by the staff are customarily made on the
basis of normal prices of materials and labor. Normal prices of at least
some construction materials are gauged by a five year average. In re
Invest. Ashland Water, Co., 1914, 14 R. C. 721, 729.
Depreciation of plant.
157. Whether depreciation has been properly treated may be shown
by investigations covering the depreciation, income and other accounts of
the plant, and by examinations of its physical property for th6 purpose of
ascertaining its depreciated or existing condition. In re Menominee &
Marinette Lt. & Tr. Co., 1909, 3 R. G. 778, 791.
Valuation. — Of property of public utilities 517
158. In order to determine the present investment of the company
it is necessary to estimate the amount the property has depreciated through
use, and to note the effect that the establishment of a depreciation reserve
of an equal amount will have on the balance sheet. In re Invest. Mosinee
EL Lt. d: P. Co., 1914, 13 R. C. 712, 714.
Original cost.
159. As to whether the original cost is accurately shown by the
construction accounts, is a matter that can be determined by a detailed
examination of these accounts, by appraisal of the plants for the purpose
of ascertaining the cost of reproducing it new, and in other ways. In re
Menominee <Sc Marinette Lt. & Tr. Co., 1909, 3 R. G. 778, 791.
Present value.
160. The present value of the plant is found by deducting the total
amount of the depreciation from the cost of reconstruction new.. Hilt
et at. V. Antigo Water Co., 1909, 3 R. C. 623, 636.
Determination of the value of water power rights — Customary
estiniates,
161. The value of water powers is ascertained in different ways.
Some believe that the market price, that is, what is paid for powers, is
the best criterion of their value. This criterion, when relied upon alone,
is apt to lead to erroneous conclusions. It is conceivable that fictitious
prices and fictitious considerations may be involved in the acquisition of
water powers or other property. In such cases the published price
cannot be taken as a fair estimate of value, at least not for rate-making
purposes. Fullmer v. Wausau St. R. Co., 1910, 5 R. C. 114, 125.
162. In estimating the value of water rights, it seems to be common
practice among engineers to compute what it would cost to operate a
steam plant in the same locality, under the same load and conditions.
Finding by this calculation the cost per horse power per year for the steam
plant, the actual cost per horse power per year of the existing water
power plant is subtracted therefrom, and the saving of the water power
over the steam power, as shown in the remainder, is called the value of
the water right. In this way steam and water power plants are ostensibly
placed on the same basis. From a purely commercial point of view
this method of estimating the value of water power rights may, in the
main, be sound. But it is not so clear that this can be said for it when
the question is regarded from the point of view of public policy. Ross et at.
V. Burkhardt Milling & El. P. Co., 1910, 5 R. C. 139, 146-148- Citu of
Belbit V. Beloit W. G. <Sc EL Co., 1911, 7 R. G. 187, 247-248.
163. Some experts capitalize the difference in the cost of operating
an hydrauUc plant and a steam plant. Without approving this method,
for the sake of illustration it may be roughly applied to the present case.
Fullmer v. Wausau St. R. Co., 1910, 5 R. G. 114, 126.
Plant must be considered as a going concern.
164. In placing a value on the physical property of a public utility,
the units of a plant should not be valued as independent entities, but as
units of a going concern performing public utility service. In re Cashton
Lt. & P. Co., 1908, 3 R. G. 67, 78; In re Purchase EL Plant of Prairie du
Sac Mill dc Lt. Co., 1914, 15 R. G. 360. 363.
518 Valuation.— -Of property of public utilities
c. VALUATION IN PARTICULAR CASES.
Electric utilities.
165. Value of physical property of electric utilities determined. In re
Appl. J. L. Ball (Augusta), 1907, 2 R. C. 105, 109; Dodgeville v. Dodgeville
EL Lt. & P. Co., 1908, 2 R. G. 392, 398; In re Purchase Property of Cashton
Lt. Sc Pr. Co., 1908, 3 R. C. 67, 83; In re Appl. Menominee & Marinette
Lt. <Sc Tr. Co., 1909, 3 R. C. 778, 787; In re Appl. No. Milwaukee Lt. &
Pr. Co., 1909, 4 R. C. 89, 104; State Journal Prig. Co. v. Madison Gas&
El. Co., 1910, 4 R. C. 501, 556; City of Rip on v. Ripon Lt. Sc W. Co., 1910
5 R. C. 1, 8; Fullmer v. Wausau St. R. Co., 1910, 5 R. C. 114, 122; Ross et al
V. Burkhardt Milling & Elec. Pr. Co. (Hudson), 1910, 5 R. G. 129, 141
Cunningham et al. v. Chippewa Falls W. Wks. Sc Lt. Co., 1910, 5 R. G
302, 339; City of Manitowoc v. Manitowoc Elec. Lt. Co., 1910, 5 R. G. 360
362; In re Appl. Darlington El. Lt. Sc W. Pr. Co., 1910, 5 R. G. 397, 405
In re Appl. Jefferson Mun. Elec. Lt. Sc W. Plant, 1910, 5 R. G. 555, 556
City of Whitewater v. Whitewater El. Lt. Co., 1910, 6 R. G. 132, 134
City of Sheboygan v. Sheboygan Ry. Sc El. Co.. 1911, 6 R. G. 353, 358
Lamb v. EasternWis. Ry. ScLt. Co., 1911, 6 R. G. 473, 477; In re Appl. Bloomer
Elec. Lt. Plant, 1911, 6 R. G. 506, 509; In re Appl. Red Cedar Valley
El. Co. (Gameron, Rice Lake), 1911, 6 R. G. 717, 724; In re Invest. Madison
Gas Sc El. Co., 191J, 7 R. G. 152, 156; City of Beloit v. Beloit W. G. Sc El.
Co., 1911, 7 R. G. 187, 201, 378; In re Appl. La Crosse G. Sc El. Co.,
1911, 8 R. G. 138, 156, 170; In re Kaukauna Lt. Sc P. Co., 1911, 8 R. G.
409, 421; In re Joint Appl. Waupaca El. Lt. Sc R. Co. and Waupaca,
1911, 8 R. G. 586, 592; City of Rhinelander v. Rhinelander Ltg. Co., ;912,
9 R. G. 406, 413; In re Appl. Bruce W. Sc Lt. Comm., 1912, 9 R. G. 474,
475; Superior Comm'l Club et al. v. Superior W. Lt. Sc P. Co., 1912, 10 R. G,
704, 735, 802; In re Invest. Evansville Mun. El. Lt. Sc W. Plant, 1912,
11 R.X:. 197, 201; In re Appl. Chetek Lt. Sc P. Co., 1912, 11 R. G. 227, 230;
In re Appl. Columbus W. Sc Lt. Comm., 1913, 11 R. G. 449, 451-453;
In re Purchase Brodhead El. Lt. Plant, 1913, 12 R. G. 88, 94; In re Appl.
Fennimore Mun. W. & Lt. Plant, 1913, 12 R. G. 194, 200-201; In re Appl.
Ft. Atkinson W. Sc Lt. Comm., 1913, 12 R. G. 260, 275, 282, 299; City of
Green Bay v. Green Bay G. S: El. Co., 1913, 12 R. G. 324, 326; Douglass et al.
V. Equitable El. Lt. Co. (Lake Geneva), 1913, 12 R. G. 337, 340; Rosencrans
et al. V. Prairie City El. Co. (Prairie du Ghien), 1913, 12 R. G. 413, 414;
In re Invest. Elec. Rates in Oconto, 1913, 12 R. G. 584, 589; In re Appl.
Neshkoro Lt. Sc P. Co., 1913, 13 R. G. 52, 54-55; City of Waukesha v.
Waukesha G. Sc El. Co., 1913, 13 R. G. 100, 103-111 ; In re Appl. Darlington
El. Lt. Sc W. P. Co., 1913, 13 R. G. 344, 350; In re Appl. Endeavor El.
Lt. Sc P. Co., 1913, 13 R. G. 448, 451; In re Purchase Manitowoc El. Lt.
Plant, 1914, 13 R. G. 452, 454, 465; In re Appl. Mt. Horeb Heat Lt. Sc
P. Co., 1914, 13 R. G. 653, 655; In re Invest. Mosinee El. Lt. Sc P. Co.,
1914, 13 R. G. 712, 713-715; Hood et al. v. Monroe El. Co., 1914, 14 R. G.
227, 229; In re Service and Rates Stevens Pt. Ltg. Co., 1914, 14 R. G. 350,
357; Kittleson et al. v. Elroy Mun. W. Sc Lt. Plant, 1914, 14 R. G. 485, 489;
In re Appl. Browntown Mun. Lt. Plant, 1914, 14 R. G. 560, 562; City of
Watertown v. Watertown G. Sc El. Co., 1914, 14 R. G. 604, 608; Jones et al.
V. Berlin Public Service Co., 1914, 15 R. G. 121, 125; In re Appl. Sun
Valuation. — Of property of public utilities 519
Prairie Mun. El. Plant, 1914, 15 R. C. 189, 191; In re Purchase of El.
Plant by the Vill. of Sharon, 1914, 15 R. C. 238, 239; In re Purchase of
Grand Rapids El. Co., 1914, 15 R. C. 258, 268; In re Purchase El. PI. of
Prairie du Sac Mill & Lt. Co., 1914, 15 R. C. 360, 363; In re Appl. United
Heat Lt. & P. Co. (Darien, Delavan), 1914, 15 R. C. 505, 516; In re Appl.
Rhinelander Power Co., 1915, 15 R. C. 783, 804.
Express companies.
166. The total value of property assigned to Wisconsin, $186,865,
included the property actually used in the state, a proportion of the prop-
erty used for the business of the company as a whole, and an additional
allowance for working capital. In re Invest. Express Rates, 1913, 12 R. G.
1, 32-33.
Gas utilities.
167. Value of physical property of gas utilities determined. In re
Appl. Manitowoc Gas Co., 1908, 3 R. G. 163, 167; State Journal Prtg. Co.
V. Madison Gas Sc Elec. Co., 1910, 4 R. G. 501, 556; City of Ripon v.
Ripon Lt. & W. Co., 1910, 5 R. G. 1, 8; Cunningham et al. v. Chippewa
Falls W. Wks. & Lt. Co., 1910, 5 R. G. 302, 339; City of Racine v. Racine
Gas Lt. Co., 1911, 6 R. G. 228, 233; In re Invest. Madison Gas & El. Co.,
1911, 7 R.' C. 152, 156; City of Beloit v. Beloit W. G. & El. Co., 1911,
7 R. G. 187, 201, 378; City of Neenah v. Wis. Tr. L. H. & P. Co. (Appleton,
Neenah-Menasha), 1911, 7 R. G. 477, 479, 490; In re Appl. La Crosse
Gas & El. Co., 1911, 8 R. G. 138, 156, 170; City of Neenah v. Wis. Tr. Lt.
H. & P. Co., 1911, 8 R. G. 251, 257-258; Meyer et al. v. Sheboygan Gas Lt.
Co., 1912, 9 R. G. 439, 441; Superior Comrnl Club et al. v. Superior W. Lt.
& P. Co., 1912, 10 R. G. 704, 735, 802; Meyer et al. v. Sheboygan Gas Lt.
Co., 1913, 11 R. G. 309, 316; City of Green Bay v. Green Bay Gas & El. Co.,
1913, 12 R. G. 324, 326; City of Milwaukee v. Milwaukee Gas Lt. Co.,
1913, 12 R. G. 441, 444, 464-465; City of Waukesha v. Waukesha Gas <k
El. Co., 1913, 13 R. G. 100, 103-111; Yanko et al. v. Portage American
Gas Co., 1913, 13 R. G. 136, 137-138; In re Appl. Manitowoc Gas Co.,
1913, 13 R. G. 325, 329-334; In re Service and Rates Stevens PL Ltg.
Co., 1914, 14 R. G. 350, 357; Jones et al. v. Berlin Public Service Co., 1914,
15 R. G. 121, 125.
Heating utilities.
168. Value of physical property of heating utilities determined. In
re Appl. La Crosse Gas & El. Co., 1911, 8 R. G. 138, 156, 170; City of
Waukesha v. Waukesha G. & El. Co., 1913, 13 R. G. 100, 103-106; Jones
et al. V. Berlin Public Service Co., 1914, 15 R. G. 121, 125.
Interurban railways.
169. Value of physical property of interurban railways determined.
Lamb v. Eastern Wis. Ry. tfc L/. Co., 1911, 6 R. G. 473, 478; Schicker v.
Rockford cfc /. Ry. Co., 1911, 6 R. G. 695, 698; Chromaster v. M. N. Ry. Co.,
1912, 8 R. G. 734, 743-744.
520 Yaluation. — Of property of public utilities
■ ■-■-■ ■ ■ ..■■-■ ^ . fc ,
c. VALUATION IN PARTICULAR CASES.— Continued
Railroads.
170. Value of physical property of railroads determined. Buel v.
C. M. & St. P. R. Co., 1907, 1 R. C. 324, 474; In re Passenger Rates M.
St. P. Sc S. S. M. R. Co., 1907, 1 R. C. 540, 543.
Street railways.
171. Value of physical property of street railways determined. Full-
mer v. Wausau St. R. Co., 1910, 5 R. C. 114, 122; City of Sheboygan v. She-
boygan Ry. & El. Co., 1911, 6 R. C. 353, 358; Lamb v. Eastern Wis. Ry.
& Lt. Co., 1911, 6 R. G. 473, 478; City of Milwaukee v. T. M. E. R. & L.
Co., 1912, 10 R. C. 1, 63, 458-160; Superior Comm'l Club et at. v. Duluth
Street Ry. Co., 1912, 11 R. C. 1, 15, 22; City of Green Bay v. Green Bay
Gas & El. Co., 1913, 12 R. C. 324, 326; In re Service of T. M. E. R. & L.
Co. in Milwaukee, 1913, 13 R. C. 178, 229.
Telephone utilities.
172. Value of physical property of telephone utilities determined.
In re Appl. J. L. Ball (Augusta), 1907, 2 R. C. 105, 109; In re Appl. Portage
Tel. Co., 1908, 2 R. C. 692, 694; In re Invest. Rates & Service of the Badger
Tel. Co. (Richland Center), 1908, 3 R C. 98, 100; Tighc et al. v. Clinton
Tel. Co., 1908, 3 R. C. 117, 125; In re Appl. Oregon Tel. Co., 1909, 3 R. G.
535, 547; Payne et al. v. Wis. Tel. Co. (Marinette), 1909, 4 R. G. 1, 9;
Davis et al. v. Wis. Tel. Co. (Ilortonvillc), 1909, 4 R. C. 370, 376; Columbus
Advn. Assn. v. Wis. Tel Co., 1910, 4 R. G. 414, 417; In re Appl. Franksville
Tel. Co. (Thompsonville), 1910, 4 R. G. 437; In re Appl. Interurban Tel.
Co. (Madison), 1910, 6 R. G. 187, 191; In re Appl. Troy and Honey Creek
Tel. Co. (Prairie du Sac, Sauk City), 1911, 6 R. G. 549, 551; In re Appl.
Evansville Tel. Exch., 1911, 6 R. G. 606, 608; In re Appl. Ozaukee-Washing-
ton Tel. Co. (Grafton), 1911, 7 R. G. 428, 429; In re Appl. State Long Dis-
tance Tel. Co. (Elkhorn), 1912, 8 R. G. 497, 500-501 ; In re Appl. Plymouth
Tel. Exch., 1912, 9 R. G. 169, 171; In re Appl. Farmers Tel. Exch. of Rich-
land Center, 1912, 9 R. G. 369, 372; In re Appl. Brodhead Tel. Co., 1912,
9 R. G. 383, 384; In re Appl. Ashland Home Tel. Co., 1912, 9 R. G. 489,
490; Boscobel Tel. Co. v. West Crawford Co. F. Mut. Tel. Co. et al., 1912,
11 R. G. 32, 39; In re Appl. East Fond du Lac Tel. Co. (Eden), 1912, 11
R. G. 114, 115; In re Appl. Random Lake Tel. Co., 1912, 11 R. G. 130,
131; Knapp et al. v. Matteson Tel. Co. (Shiocton, Welcome), 1912, 11 R. G.
180, 187-188; In re Appl. MuscodaMui. Tel. Co., 1913, 11 R. G. 666, 672
In re Appl. Deerfield Tel. Co., 1913, 12 R. G. 672, 673; In re Appl. Toma-
hawk Lt. Tel. Sc Improvement Co., 1913, 13 R. G. 340, 341; In re Appl.
Farmers' Tel. Co. of Beetown, 1914, 13 R. G. 540, 552-553; Arena &
Ridg'y Tel. Co. v. Troy <Sc Honey Creek Tel. Co. et al. (Spring Green),
1914, 13"^ R. G. 763, 765; In re Appl. Badger State Tel. c^ Teleg. Co. (Neills-
ville, Granton), 1914, 14 R. G. 407, 412-415; In re Appl. New Union Tel. Co.
(Podgeville, Mineral Pt.), 1914, 15 R. G. 60, 63; In re Appl. Mineral
Pt. Tel. Co., 1914, 15 R. G. 182, 184; In re Tel. Toll Rates, Markesan to
Kingston, 1914, 15 R. G. 288-292; In re Invest. Rates & Regulations of Eagle
Tel. Co. (Eagle), 1914, 15 R. G. 397, 400; In re Appl. Marion & Northern
Tel. Co. (Glintonville), 1914, 15 R. G. 552, 560; In re Appl. Clark County
Tel. Co., 1915, 15 R. G. 822," 827. ' "
Valuation. — Of property of public utilities 521
Toll bridges.
173. Value of physical property of toll bridge determined. Marcus et
(il. V. Postel & Swingle (Muscoda), 1913, 13 R. G. 47, 49, 50.
Water utilities.
174. Value of physical property of water utilities determined. In
re Purchase of Property of City Water Co. of Sheboygan^ 1909, 3 R. C. 371,
377; Hill d al. v. Antigo Water Co., 1909, 3 R. G. 623, 687; City of Ashland
V. Ashland Water Co., 1909, 4 R. G. 273, 277; City of Ripon v. Ripon Lt. &
W. Co., 1910, 5. R. C. 1, 8; City of Appleton v. Appleton Water Wks. Co.,
1910, 5 R. G. 215, 226; Cunningham et al.v. Chippewa Falls W. Wks. &: Ltg.
Co., 1910, 5. R. G. 302, 339; In re Appl. Darlington El. Lt. <Sc Water Pr. Co.,
1910, 5 R. C. 397, 405; In re Purchase of Property of Fond du Lac Water
Co., 1910, 5 R. G. 482, 491; In re Appl. Jefferson Mun. Elec. Lt. Sc W.
Plant, 1910, 5 R. G. 555, 556; Dick et al. v. Madison Water Comm., 1910,
5 R. G. 731, 739; Kirwin et al. v. City of Darlington, 1910, 6 R. G. 26, 30;
City of Washburn v. Washburn Water Wks. Co., 1910, 6 R. G. 74, 78; In re
Purchase of Property of Appleton Water Wks. Co., 1910, 6 R. G. 97, 106;
In re Purchase of Property of Lake Geneva Water & Lt. Co., 1911, 6 R. G.
403, 405; City of Stevens Pt. v. Stevens Pt. Water Co., 1911,-6 R. G. 458,
468; In re Purchase of Property of Manitowoc Water Wks. Co., 1911, 7 R. G.
71, 76; In re Manitowoc W. Wks. Co., 1911, 7 R. G. 71, 127, 130; City of
Beloit V. Beloit Water Gas Sc El. Co., 1911, 7 R. G. 187, 201, 378; In re Appl.
Oconto City Water Supply Co., 1911, 7 R. G. 497, 511, 517; City of Janesville
V. Janesville Water Co., 1911, 7 R. G. 628, 635, 642; In le Appl. Hillsboro
W. Wks. Co., 1911, 8 R. G. 85, 87; City of Marinette v. City W. Co. of Mari-
nette, 1911, 8 R. G. 334, 352; In re Valuation of Whitewater W. Wks. Co.,
1912, 10 R. G. 524, 527; Civic League et at. v. Beaver Dam W. Co., 1912,
10 R. G. 661, 675; Superior Comm' I Club et al. v. Superior W. Lt. & P.
Co., 1912, 10 R. G. 704, 735, 802; In re Appl. City of Neenah, 1912, 11 R. G.
119, 121; In re Invest. Evansville Mun. El. Lt. cfc W. Plant, 1912, 11 R. G.
197, 201; City of Green Bay v. Green Bay Water Co., 1913, 11 R. G. 236. 242;
Rollins et al. v. Village of Montjort, 1913, 11 R. G. 278, 280: In re Appl.
Cashton Mun. Lt. & W. Comm., 1913, 11 R. G.. 410, 413; In re Appl.
Columbus W. & LI. Comm., 1913, 11 R. G. 449, 451-452; In re Appl. Village
of Elkhart Lake, 1913, 11 R. C. 690, 691-692; In re Appl. City of Delavan,
1913, 12 R. G. 148, 151; In re Appl. Fennimore Mun. W. & Lt. Plant,
1913, 12 R. G. 194, 200-201 ; In re Appl. Ft. Atkinson W. & Lt. Comm.,
1913, 12 R. G. 260, 272, 282; In re Appl. City of Sparta, 1913, 12 R. G.
532, 537-539; In re Purchase Oshkosh W. Wks. Plant, 1913. 12 R. G. 602,
670; In re Purchase Antigo W. Go's Plant, 1913, 13 R. G. 156, 158-159,
164; In re Purchase Beaver Dam Water Go's Plant, 1913, 13 R. G. 169,
176-177; In re Invest. Ashland Water Co., 1914, 14 R. G. 1, 28; Town of
Vaughn v. Hurley W. Co., 1914, 14 R. G. 291, 295; Kittleson et al. v. Elroy
Mun. W. & Lt. Plant, 1914, 14 R. G. 485, 489; Dennett et al. v. City of
Sheboygan, 1914, 14 R. G. 634, 637; Hughes et al. v. Waierlown Water Wks.,
1914, 14 R. G. 669, 671; In re Purchase Janesville Water Wks. Plant, 1915,
15 R. G. 074, 680.
522 Value of Article Carried
VALUE OF ARTICLE CARRIED.
As element considered in making railroad rates, see Rates — Railroad,
159-163.
As matter considered in determining reasonableness of railroad rates, see
Rates — Railroad, 197-198.
VALUE OF SERVICE.
As element considered in making railroad rates, see Rates — Railroad, 164.
VEHICLE SPRINGS.
Reasonableness of rates on vehicles springs, see Rates — Railroad, 284.
VESTED INTERESTS.
Contract whose performance depends upon the continuance of a
franchise.
1. Vested interests cannot be divested, but a contract whose perform-
ance depends upon the continuance of a franchise is not one in which the
owner of a franchise can have a vested interest. This seems to be clear
under the ruling of the supreme court of the United States in Greenwood v.
Freight Co., 1881, 105 U. S. 13, 19, 21-22. Citij of Ashland v. Ashland
Water Co., 1909, 4 R. C. 273, 303.
VIADUCTS.
For separation of grades at railroad crossings, see Railroads, 55.
VILLAGES.
See also Municipalities.
Power of villages to require the protection of railroad grade crossings, see
Railroads, 103.
Right of railroads to construct their tracks across or upon the highways and
public places of any village, see Railroads, 105.
Village board, consent of, necessary for abandonment of street railway
track constructed under franchise granted by such board, see Street
Railways, 9. ^
petition of, as condition precedent to jurisdiction of Commission over
crossing of railroad by highway, see Railroad Commission, 86.
VISUAL SIGNAL.
Installation of, see Railroads, 22.
Warehouses. — In general 523
VOLUME OF TRAFFIC.
As element considered in making railroad rates, see Rates — Railroad,
156-158.
WAGES AND SALARIES.
As element considered in making rates for electric utilities, see Rates —
Electric, 41-42.
Wages of management as element considered in makingYates for toll bridge,
see Rates — Toll Bridge, 1.
WAGON BOXES.
Reasonableness of rates on wagon boxes, see Rates — Railroad, 234.
WAGONS.
Reasonableness of rates on wagons, see Rates — Railroad, 234.
WAITING STATIONS.
See Station Facilities.
WAIVER.
Waiver of right to damages under public service contracts, see Contracts
8; Estoppel, 1.
WAREHOUSES.
Discrimination between dealers, see Discrimination, 48.
I. IN GENERAL.
II. CONTROL AND REGULATION IN GENERAL.
III. OPERATION.
I. IN GENERAL.
Definition of warehouseman.
1. The supreme court of Wisconsin has defined a warehouseman as
"one openly engaged in the business of storing property for others for a
compensation." (Geilfuss v. Corrigan, 1897, 95 Wis. 663), and the statute
which gives the Commission authority over warehouse sites on railroad
property evidently contemplates a business in which a specific service is
rendered to all demanding it for a uniform compensation. American
Society of Equity v. C. St. P. M. <k 0. R. Co., 1913, 12 R. G. 557, 558.
524 Warehouses. — Control and regulation
II. CONTROL AND REGULATION IN GENERAL.
Power of Commission over public warehouse sites on railroad
property.
2. The representative of the company raised the question of the
Commission's power to require a railway company to lease any particular
site on its right of way to persons desiring to erect a warehouse. The
statutes empower the Commission to make such an order in cases where
the warehouse is of a public nature; but no jurisdiction is given it in cases
where the petitioning parties do not contemplate the establishment of a
public warehouse. American Society of Equity v. C. St. P. M. Sz 0. R.
Co., 1913, 12 R. C. 557, 558; Roberts Produce Co. v. C. St. P. M. & 0. R.
Co., 1910, 5 R. C.207; Rust v. M. St. P. & S. S. M. R. Co:, 1914, 14 R. C.
251, 252.
Public nature of warehouses owned by railroad companies.
3. "While it is not the absolute legal duty of a common carrier to
provide elevator facilities at terminals, it is highly advantageous to the
public and to the carrier that such facilities be furnished, and when they
are placed at the disposal of the public and are used by it for a series of
years, so that commercial conditions and interests have grown up under
such methods of doing business, such elevators become an integral part of
the equipment of the carrier, which the public at large has the right to use.
Superior Board of Trade v. G. N. R. Co. et at., 1907, 1 R. C. 619; Superior
Board of Trade v. C. St. P. M. <Sc 0. R. Co., 1907, 1 R. C. 655.
Railroad company not compelled to construct and maintain grain
elevator.
4. While an elevator at the point in question is a desirable facility
for a railway company to have, and while if the railway company in
question had furnished such a facility for the use and benefit of the public
it would be obliged to continue the service, it is not under any legal
obligation to engage in the elevator business as an original proposition.
Superior Board of Trade v. N. P. R. Co., 1907, 1 R. C. 658, 659.
III. OPERATION.
Requirements as to service and facilities — Special bins. ^
5. By providing special bins when called for, the value of an important
facility in transportation might be greatly minimized. When the ad-
vantages that might result to the few are compared with the disadvantages
that might result to the many, we entertain little doubt that the prayer
of the petition in this respect should be denied. Superior Board of Tradfi
V. C. St. P. M. & 0. R. Co., 1907, 1 R. C. 619, 654.
WATER POWER LAW.
SECTIONS CONSTRUED.
Sec. 1596, "unlawful obstructions," law does not define what constitutes
unlawful obstructions. In re Obstructions in Rock River at Janes-
ville, 1914. 14 R. C. 190, 202.
Water Powers. — Dams 525
Sec. 1596-59, dams constructed and operated without authority of law,
when declared pubUc nuisance. In re Appls. for W. P. Franchise
on Apple River, 1915, 15 R. C. 712, 721.
Sec. 1596-69, subsec. 6, franchise for increasing or combining water
powers, when franchise is unnecessary. In re Appls. for W. P.
Franchise on Apple River, 1915, 15 R. G. 712, 721.
WATER POWER LEASE.
Unpaid rent on water power lease not an element of value in valuation of
property of electric utility, see Valuation, 126.
WATER POWER RIGHTS.
Appraisal of water power rights in the valuation of the property of public
utilities, customary estimates, see Valuation, 161-163.
As element in the valuation of public utilities, see Valuation, 127-128.
WATER POWERS.
See also Navigable Waters.
Saving from operating of electric plant by hydraulic power as element
considered in determining value of electric utility, see Valuation,
127-128.
Jurisdiction of Commission over obstructions in navigable streams, see
Railroad Commission, 64.
over river improvements, see Railroad Commission, 97.
DAMS.
Dams constructed and operated without authority of law —
Status of.
1. It is contended by the counter-petitioners that the petitioners'
McClure dam is an illegal structure, being constructed and operated with
no authqrity from either the legislature or the Commission. Sec. 1596-59
of the Water Power Act allows a period of six months after which a dam
operated without authority shall become a public nuisance. As the dam
in question was finished a few days prior to the date at which the Water
Power Act went into effect, and even if its construction had not been
completed until after the act went into effect, the petitioner could have
operated it without a franchise for the period of six months allowed by
statute, so that the dam cannot be said to be in any sense a nuisance
under the Water Power Act. In re Appls. for W. P. Franchise on Apple
River, 1915, 15 R. C. 712, 721.
Repairs, necessity of.
2. Necessity for repairs determined by Commission, Power company
ordered to make necessary repairs. In le Paramount P. & Realty Co.,
1912, 9 R. C. 331.
526 Water Powers. — Franchises
WATER POWER FRANCHISES.
Conditions under which franchise may be granted.
3. The provisions of subsec. 6 of sec. 1596-69 do not apply to the
New Richmond Roller Mills Company, for neither is it a "grantee"
within the meaning of the term as used throughout the Water Power Act,
nor is the Huntington dam included within the terms of the section quoted.
The "coupling up" referred to applies to dams of less than 250 horse
power and to dams for which a franchise has been granted under the W^ater
Power Act, and the Huntington dam is neither of these, and as no franchise
has as yet been granted to the petitioner to operate the McClure dam,
it is in no sense a grantee. It is not obligatory, therefore, that the peti-
tioner organize under the provisions of sec. 1596-62 of the statutes in
order to become eligible for a franchise under the Water Power Act.
In re Appls. for W. P. Franchise on Apple River, 1915, 15 R. G. 712, 721.
WATER RATES.
See Rates — Water.
WATER UTILITIES.
Cost of service of water utilities, determination of unit costs, see Account-
ing, 174-185.
Depreciation, rate of depreciation of water plant, see Depreciation,
- 46-51.
Discrimination as between consumers of water utility, see Discrimina-
tion, 30-46. N
Taxation, relation between the assessed valuation and the net earnings
of public utilities, see Taxation, 1.
ACCOUNTING.
See Accounting, 5, 174-185.
I. CONTROL AND REGULATION IN GENERAL.
II. EARNINGS.
III. ESTABLISHMENT, CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE.
a. Extensions.
IV. MUNICIPAL ACQUISITION — TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF SALE
AND PURCHASE.
a. Compensation for property.
b. Power of municipalily to acquire public utility.
V. OPERATION.
a. Management. c. Sewer flushing.
b. Requirements as to service and d. Standards of service.
facilities.
VI. WATER COMPANIES.
I. CONTROL AND REGULATION IN GENERAL.
P<ywer of state to regulate service and facilities.
1. Every public service corporation is by statute subject to public
supervision as to the extent and quality of its service. (Berend v. Wis.
Water Utilities. — Establishment, constr. and mainten. 527
Tel. Co., 1909, 4 R. C. 150, 155.) In re Appl: Oconto City Water Supply
Co., 1910, 5 R. C. 691, 692.
II. EARNINGS.
Monopoly power as factor in earnings.
2. When public utilities earn more than reasonable returns on their
investment, it is quite likely that this extra earning can be traced to their
monopoly advantages. Their bargaining powers are greater than those
of their customers. Their customers are limited in freedom of choice.
They have fitted up their homes with pipes and fixtures and these are
connected with the mains of the local utihty. These pipes and connec-
tions have also, as a rule, been put in at their own expense. They have
no option of patronizing a competing company in case they become dis-
satified. Even if there were another utility of the kind in their place,
the change would be so costly that it would be likely to result in a loss in
the long run. Hill et at. v. Antigo Water Co., 1909, 3 R. G. 623, 720-721.
III. ESTABLISHMENT, GONSTRUGTION AND MAINTENANGE.
a. EXTENSIONS.
Duty of utility to extend mains.
3. A water utility should construct and own its distribution system,
at least as far as to the consumer's premises. This being the case, it is
difficult to see by what process of reasoning it can be held that the fact
that the utility has in the past shifted upon consumers a portion of its
rightful duties, the installing of parts of the distribution system, should
stand in the way of the utihty putting in a main or mains at the present
time. City of Janesville v. Janesville Water Co., 1911, 7 R. G. 628, 689.
4. That the cost of new main should not be entirely met by the
consumers directly served by that main is true especially in cases where a
main is so situated that further extension of it may be made as occasion
arises. City of Janesville v. Janesville Water Co., 1911, 7 R. G. 628, 691.
For domestic service only.
5. To be just and effective, an order requiring an extension of water
mains to be made for domestic service alone, should be made with due re-
gard for ^he magnitude of both the investment necessary and the probable
additional earnings to be gained thereby, including the return on the addi-
tional investment. Beloit W. G. & El. Co. v. City of Beloit, 1912, 9 R. G.
250, 258-259.
In particular cases.
6. Petition for extension of mains dismissed. In re Viola Mun. W.
Plant, 1914, 13 R. G. 702, 703.
7. Utility ordered to extend mains. Beloit W. G. Sc Et. Co. v. City of
Beloit, 1910, 5 R. G. 459, 617; City of Janesville v. Janesville Water Co.,
1911, 7 R. G. 628; Madison Realty Co. et at. v. City of Madison, 1912, 10
R. G. 447; Webber et at. v. City of Lake Mills, 1913, 12 R. G. 577; Atwood
et at. v. City of Lake Mills, 1914, 14 R. G. 210; In re Janesville Water Co.,
1914, 15 R. G. 370.
528 Water Utilities. — Establishment, constr. and mainten,
a. EXTENSIONS. — Continued
Reasonableness of municipal ordinance ordering extension.
8. A public utility cannot be required to make extensions indiscrim-
inately, without reference to cost and revenues, but such utility may well
be expected to make extensions to serve citizens if there is a reasonable
prospect of an increase in revenues, sufficient to warrant the expense.
Beloit W. G. & El. Co. v. City of Beloit, 1910, 5 R. C. 459, 464-465.
9. No utility can extend its mains or other service lines indefinitely to
reach a single new consumer or a small number of new consumers and
at the same time furnish service to all at the same average unit cost. It
is therefore necessary either to establish some rule or rules fixing equitable
terms under which extensions of its pipe or other lines will be made for
new consumers beyond the limits of its system, or to make frequent
readjustments of rates to all consumers to fit the changed conditions.
Beloit W. G. & El. Co. v. City of Beloit, 1912, 9 R. C. 250, 259-261.
Reasonableness of order requiring extension.
10. In determining the question as to the reasonableness of an order
requiring the extension of water mains, due consideration should l>e given,
not only to the interests of the utility, but to the interests of the consumer
and the public. These interests, however, as well as the conditions upon
which they depend, vary so much from place to place that it is difficult,
if not altogether impossible, to lay down specific rules for extensions of the
plant and the business that can be generally applied. In a general way it
can, of course, be said that extensions should be put in at the expense of
the plant whenever they bid fair to become fairly remunerative. Because
of varying conditions, however, the term "fair remuneration" may not
always stand for like elements. Beloit W. G. Sc El. Co. v. City of Beloit,
1910, 5 R. C. 617, 623-624; City of Janesville v. Janesvilie Water Co., 1911,
7 R. C. 628, 689.
Terms and conditions of extension.
11. In the matter of extending the mains of a water system, uniform
regulations should be enforced. The persons desiring the extension of a
main should be subjected to like terms and conditions. Beloit W. G. & El.
Co. V. City of Beloit, 1912, 9 R. C. 250, 261; Webber et al. v. City of Lake
Mills, 1913, 12 R. G. 577, 580.
12. Rates for extensions prescribed. In re Invest. Green Bay Water
Co., 1913, 12 R. C. 734; In re Invest. Ashland Water Co., 1914, 14 R. C. 1.
IV. MUNICIPAL ACQUISITION— TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF
SALE AND PURCHASE.
a. COMPENSATION FOR PROPERTY.
Compensation determined by Commission.
13. Compensation for property determined by Commission in the
following cases of municipal acquisition of water utilities: In re City
Water Co. of Sheboygan, 1909, 3 R. C. 371; In re Fond du Lac Water Co.,
1910. 5 R. C. 482; In re Appleton Water Wks. Co., 1910, 6 R. C. 97; In re
Lake Geneva Water & Lt. Co., 1911, 6 R. C. 403; In re Manitowoc Water
Water Utilities. — Municipal acquisition; terms, etc. 529
Wks. Co., 1911, 7 R. C. 71; In re Fond du Lac Water Co., 1911, 8 R. C.
259; In re Manitowoc Water Wks. Co., 1911, 8 R. C. 266; In re Valuation
of Whitewater Water Wks. Co., 1912, 10 R. C. 524; In re Purchase Oshkosh
Water Wks. Plant, 1913, 12 R. C. 602; In re Purchase Antigo Water Co's
Plant, 1913, 13 R. G. 156; In re Purchase Beaver Dam Water Co's Plant,
1913, 13 R. G. 169, 177; In re Purchase Janesville Water Wks. Plant,
1915, 15 R. G. 674.
Compensation to cover property used and useful.
14. The law neither authorizes nor enables the city to purchase only
such part of the plant as it may desire, nor can the company compel the
city to acquire more property than is actually used and useful for the con-
venience of the public. City of Mellen u. Mellen W. Sc Lt. Co., 1910, 5
R. C. 202, 204.
b. POWER OF MUNICIPALITY TO ACQUIRE PUBLIC UTILITY.
Action by municipal council — Regularity.
15. Objection was made that the action of the municipal council of
the city of Fond du Lac to acquire the water works of the Fond du Lac
Water Go. was void for the reason that such action was not expressed in
the form of an ordinance or formal resolution. We apprehend that in
the absence of any specific requirement as to the form of the action, any
motion duly made, voted upon and recorded would be an effective de-
termination of the matter under the statute. {Citij of Green Bay u. Brauns,
1880, 50 Wis. 204, 207.) In re Fond du Lac Water Co., 1910, 5 R. G. 482,
490.
Capacity of city to incur indebtedness.
16. The argument on behalf of the company relative to the financial
inability of the city to make the purchase is predicated on certain assump-
tions that are more or less speculative, and hence not sufficient grounds
for objection at this stage of the proceeding. Until the just compensation
is ascertained it is impossible to determine even approximately the ability
of the city to pay the same. Such compensation may be more or less than
the tentative valuation, which merely forms the basis of the investigation.
In re Racine W. Co., 1912, 10 R. G. 543, 553; In re Purchase Janesville
Water Co's Plant, 1913, 13 R. G. 29, 30.
Provision for compensation.
17. The law is well settled that when private property is appropriated
by a municipality for public purposes such compensation must be actually
made or the means provided whereby it can be certainly obtained. How-
ever, the omission of any means for securing such compensation is not an
infirmity of the act if such means otherwise exist and are sufficient for the
purpose. In re Racine Water Co., 1912, 10 R. G. 543, 550; In re Purchase
Janesville Water Co's Plant, 1913, 13 R. G. 29, 30.
Submission of question to voters.
18. Questions often arise in respect to certain property which has
ceased to be active or is only semi-active, as to whether the same is actu-
\
530 Water Utilities. — Municipal acquisition; terms, etc.
ally used and useful for the convenience of the public within the meaning
of the statute, and until these questions are determined it is not possible to
give anything more than a general description of the plant, and even then a
definite description would contain so much detail as to be of no practical
value to the voters. The term "water works" is as comprehensive a term
as could be employed. In re Racine Water Co., 1912, 10 R. G. 543, 547;
In re Purchase Janesville Water Go's Plant, 1913, 13 R. G. 29, 30.
b. POWER OF MUNICIPALITY TO ACQUIRE PUBLIC
UTILITY. — Continued
Right to determine question of acquisition — Where vested.
19. It was not until after the common council had adopted the report
of the committee declaring the intention of the municipality to acquire the
water works, that the legislature amended sec. 1797/n-80, thereby taking
from the council and vesting in the voters of the municipality the right of
determining whether the municipality shall acquire any public utihty.
Unless, therefore, the action of the council prior to the amendment is
ineffectual for any reason, such determination of the council must be held
binding upon the municipality. Wis. Statutes, sec. 1797/n-80, as amended
by eh. 213, laws of 1909. In re Fond du Lac Water Co., 1910, 5 R. G.
482,490.
V. OPERATION.
a. MANAGEMENT. \
Financial transactions.
20. It appears to be a good business policy to treat a municipal plant
as an enterprise separate and distinct from the municipality itself and to
have accounts kept accordingly. If this policy is followed the city should
pay the utility at a reasonable rate for all service rendered the city,
in order to avoid unjust discrimination in favor of the taxpayers of the
city as against consumers; the utility, in turn, should pay the city a reason-
able amount as taxes and as interest oil the city's equity in the property of
the utility, in order to avoid unjust discrimination in favor of the consum-
ers as against the taxpayers; and the city should provide all funds required
for capital expenditures. In re Appl. Lake Mills Lt. & W. Comrn., 1912,
11 R. G. 160, 164; In re Appl. City of Sparta, 1913, 12 R. G. 532, 535-537.
21. In regard to the handling of moneys of the water department,
attention is called to sec. 925-956 to 925-95c of the Statutes, which speci-
fically provide for the administration of water works accounts. Gompli-
ance with the provisions as outlined in the law referred to will, it is
believed, relieve the present confusion regarding the handling of finances.
In re Appl. Lake Mills Lt. & W. Comm., 1912, 11 R. G. 160, 163; Dennett
et al. V. City of Sheboygan, 1914, 14 R. G. 634, 650.
22. Materials sold by a utihty should be sold at a price high enough
to cover at least the cost of handhng in addition to the cost of the goods,
and in the cost of handhng should be included not only such items as
freight and cartage, but also the losses due to breakage, necessary waste
and other costs of a similar nature. In re Invest. Waterloo Mun. W. <fc
El. Plant, 1914, 15 R. G. 534. 551.
Water Utilities. — Operation 531
b. REQUIREMENTS AS TO SERVICE AND FACILITIES.
In general.
23. Every public service corporation is required by law to furnish
adequate and efficient service to the public according to the development
and state of the art at the time the service is performed. Berend v. Wis.
Tel. Co., 1909, 4 R. C. 150, 155; In re Appl. Oconto City W. Supply Co.,
1910, 5 R. C. 691, 692.
Adequacy of service.
24. The question of adequacy of watfer service in general was passed
upon in the following cases: Hill et al. v. Antigo Water Co., 1908, 2 R. C.
627; City of Mellen v. Mellen W. Sc Lt. Co., 1910, 5 R. C. 202; City of Apple-
ton V. Appleton Water Wks. Co., 1910, 5 R. C. 215; Dick et al. v. Madison
Water Comm., 1910, 5 R. C. 731; City of Stevens Pt. v. Stevens Pt. Water
Co., 1911, 6 R. C. 458; Torrance et al. v. La Crosse Board of Water Commrs,
1911, 7 R. C. 27; Fitzgerald et al. v. City of Tomahawk, 1911, 8 R. C. 4a;
In re Appl. Hillsboro Water Wks. Co., 1911, 8 R. C. 85; Superior Comm' I
Club et al. v. Superior W. Lt. Sc P. Co., 1912, 10 R. C. 704; In re Invest.
Bayfield Mun. W. & Lt. Plant, 1913, 11 R. C. 686; Vill. of Sharon v.
United Heat Lt. & P. Co., 1913, 13 R. G. 1; In re Invest. Ashland Water
Co., 1914, 14 R. G. 1; Town of Vaughn v. Hurley W. Co., 1914, 14 R. G.
291; Dennett et al. v. City of Sheboygan, 1914, 14 R. G. 634.
Duty of utility to furnish service.
25. By entering into the contract for pumping the village did not
give up its proprietership of the water works and the milling company did
not assume any direct obligation to the patrons of the water works. All
contractual relations between the village and the consumers remained as
before. The duty of serving the inhabitants with pure, wholesome
water still rests directly upon the village and the village ordinance regarding
the use of water by consumers, and subjecting the latter to prosecution
and fine for any violation of its provisions, remains in effect. In re Appl.
Village of Cashton, 1908, 2 R. G. 677, 684.
Plan to secure adequacy primarily a matter for utility to
determine.
26. Plans for the reconstruction of the plant in order to provide for
adequate service is a matter primarily for the utility to determine. The
public is only interested in the result. City of Appleton v. Appleton
Water Wks. Co., 1910, 5 R. G. 215. 285-286.
Appliances for the measurement of product or service — Duty of
utility to provide meters.
27. The Public Utihties" Law clearly contemplates that the divided
ownership of parts of the equipment of public utilities shall cease, and
that all responsibility for the installation and maintenance of the whole
of the equipment shall be centered exclusively in the management. In
practice, this undoubtedly means that private and municipal plants
must acquire, by purchase or lease, all meters used in connection with
their respective works. In re Invest. Hudson W. Wks., 1908, 3 R. G.
138, 141; City of Washburn v. Washburn Water Wks. Co., 1910, 6 R. G.
532 Water Utilities. — Operation
74, 92; City of Janesville v. Janesville Water Co., 1911, 7 R. C. 628, 681;
City of Marinette v. City Water Co. of Marinette, 1911, 8 R. C. 334, 377;
Alter et al. v. City of Manitowoc, 1912, 10 R. C. 387, 397-398; Civic League
et al. V. Beaver Dam Water Co., 1912, 10 R. C. 661, 689-691; In re Appl.
City of Neenah, 1912, 11 R. C. 119, 128; In re Invest. Evansville Mun. El.
Lt. & W. Plant, 1912, 11 R. C. 197, 209, 215; In re Appl. Village of Elkhart
Lake, 1913, 11 R. C. 690, 693; Alter et al. v. City of Manitowoc, 1914, 14
R. C. 690, 693, 694; In re Appl. City of Sparta, 1913, 12 R. C. 532, 545.
b. REQUIREMENTS AS TO SERVICE AND FACILITIES. — Continued
Appliances for the measurement of product or service — Duty of
utility to provide meters.
28. Since the decision in the Hudson case (1908, 5 R. C. 138) was
rendered, the legislature has created a different situation by enacting
ch. 213, laws of 1909 (sec. 1797/n-90), in accordance with which the public
titility may, on application to the Commission, be exempted from the duty
of providing meters for its consumers. City of Washburn v. Washburn
Water Wks. Co., 1910, 6 R. C. 74, 92.
29. Utility ordered to install meters. In re Invest. Hudson Water
Wks., 1908, 3 R. C. 138; Kirwin et al. v. City of Darlington, 1910, 6 R. G.
26; 408; City of Washburn v. Washburn W. Wks. Co., 1910, 6 R. C. 74;
City of Beloit v. Beloit W. G. & El. Co., 1911,' 7 R. C. 187; In re Appl.
Oconto City Water Supply Co, 1911, 7 R. C.497; Fitzgerald et al. v. City of
Tomahawk, 1911, 8 R. G. 40; Lothrop v. Village of Sharon, 1912, 8 R. C. 479;
Alter et^al. v. City of Manitowoc, 1912, 10 R. G. 387; Civic League et al. v.
Beaver Dam W. Co., 1912, 10 R. G. 661; City of Green Bay v. Green Bay
W. Co., 1913, 11 R. G. 236; In re Appl. Village of Elkhart Lake, 1913,
11 R. G. 690; In re Appl. Ft. Atkinson W. & Lt. Conun., 1913, 12 R. G.
260.
Duty of utility to repair meters.
30. Repair items are expenses which the utility should bear. In re
Appl. City ofDelavan, 1913, 12 R. G. 148, 162.
31. The water department should assume the expenses of keeping
all meters in repair and should pay all consumers owning their meters a
reasonable rental for the same. In re Appl. City of Sparta, 1913, 12 R. G.
532, 545; Dennett et al. v. City of Sheboygan, 1914, 14 R. G. 634, 649.
Location of meters.
32. The meter -boxes already set in the street gutters should be re-
moved, as ordered by the city council, and placed under the sidewalk,
and future installations of the kind should be made under the sidewalk,
except perhaps in special cases in which the City authorizes the installation
in the street. Oconto City Water Supply Co. v. City of Oconto, 1912,
10 R. G. 584, 589.
33. Consumers must furnish a reasonably accessible meter location
approved by the water works superintendent, and upon failure to provide
a suitable location for a meter and after reasonable notice has been
given, water \sill be shut off until the requirements have been complied
with. In re Appl. City of Delavan, 1913, 12 R. G. 148, 163.
Water Utilities. — Operation 533
Utility relieved from duty of providing meters.
34. Order entered authorizing utility to require consumers to supply
meters. In re Appl. Durand Mun. W. Wks., 1912, 11 R. C. 169; In re
Appl. City of Milwaukee, 1912, 11 R. G. 195; In re Appl. Cashton Lt. &
W. Comm., 1913, 11 R. C. 410; In re Appl. City of Delavan, 1913, 12 R. G.
148; In re Invest. Ashland Water Co., 1914, 14 R. G. 1.
Cross connections between mains.
35. Gross connections at short intervals between parallel or radiating
water mains are generally recognized as important, particularly from the
standpoint of rejiabihty of fire service. Atwood et al. v. City of Lake Mills,
1914, 14 R. G. 210, 214.
Quality of water.
36. The problem of deahng correctly with the purification of a water
supply of varying quality and degree of pollution would seem to require
the installation and use of facilities for scientifically determining the
character of the water at any and all times. In re Invest. Ashland Water
Co., 1914, 14 R. G. 1, 6.
37. Inasmuch as the installation of a purification plant has noticeably
improved the quality of the water supplied for domestic use and inasmuch
as there is no evidence that laboratory or other additional facilities are
urgently needed, an order for the installation of such additional facilities
is not advisable at this time. Town of Vaughn v. Hurley W. Co., 1914,
14 R. G. 291, 312.
38. Whether the present apparent freedom from contamination of
the water can be depended upon to continue indefinitely, cannot at present
be determined. If it is liable to contamination, the purification of the
supply should be immediately investigated. Dennett et al. v. City oj She-
boygan, 1914, 14 R. G. 634, 639.
Services — Duty of utility to provide services.
39. The logical conclusion seems to be that the utility should install
and own services to the curb line. The utility, and not the consumer, has
the right to occupy the streets, and all pipes laid in the streets should be
the property of the utility, and we believe should be put in by the utility.
City of Janesville v. Janesville W. Co., 1911, 7 R. G. 628, 681; In re Appl.
Columbus Water & Lt. Comm., 1913, 11 R. G. 449, 471.
40. Where the practice of requiring consumers to furnish services
from main tO' curb has been consistently followed it may be best to con-
tinue this pohcy. Alter et al. v. City of Manitowoc, 1912, 10 R. G. 387, 396;
In re Invest. Evansville Mun. El. Lt. c^ W. Plant, 1912, 11 R. G. 197, 210;
In re Appl. City of Delavan, 1913, 12 R. G. 148, 161; Alter et al. v. City of
Manitowoc, 1914, 14 R. G. 690, 692.
Leaks.
41. The consumer ordinarily has no great interest in water wasted
that does not go through his meter, and is reluctant to report leaks which
cause such' losses if he is compelled to pay for the repair. In order,
therefore, to protect itself it seems advisable that the utility should main-
tain the pipe up to the meter. In re Appl. Columbus W. <Sc Lt. Comm.,
1913, 11 R. C. 449, 471; In re Appl City of Delavan, 1913, 12 R. G. 148, 162.
534 Water Utilities. — Operation
c. SEWER FLUSHING.
Reasonableness of rules. ,
42. Each time the city desires to flush sewers it shall notify the water
company in advance and the company shall then provide one person who
shall take exclusive charge of turning water on and off, and of meters
used for measuring water for flushing, except that in cases of emergency
the city may flush sewers after notice to the company without waiting
for the company's representative to arrive. In re Invest. Green Bay Water
Co., 1913, 12 R. C. 734, 741-743.
d. STANDARDS OF SERVICE.
Press uriB.
43. Investigations show that since the complaint was entered changes
in the periods of pumping have increased the pressure. Respondent has
made numerous improvements by instalhng apparatus giving better con-
trol of the standpipe and insuring its being kept full at all times. A private
fire alarm system has also been established, keeping the company informed
as to all fire alarms and insuring better service in periods of such necessity.
City of Ripon v. Ripon Lt. & W. Co., 1910, 5 R. C. 1, 3, 88-89.
44. The present service is inadequate and it is ordered that the utility
make improvements in its plant and equipment as outlined by the Com-
mission, so that it will be in a position to furnish adequate fire protection.
Civic League et ai v. Beaver Dam W. Co., 1912, 10 R. C. 661, 689-691.
Supply.
45. A perfect water supply is worth all it costs. There is no financial
standard by means of which to measure the limit of human effort that
should be expended in attaining it. The safety and permanence and growth
of the dependent civilization is too important to permit expression in ordi-
nary units or to be reduced to the basis of profit or interest on investment,
or to be viewed in any common way as solely a commercial or industrial
enterprise or utility. In re Invest. Ashland Water Co., 1914, 14 R. G. 1, 24.
RATES.
See Rates — Water.
VALUATION.
See Valuation.
VI. WATER COMPANIES.
Franchises and powers in general.
46. In this state public utiUties are operated either under franchises
usuafly granted by the municipalities they serve, or under indeterminate
permits obtained under the statutes of the state. Some of these franchises
are limited as to time; others are revocable by their very terms; many,
like the indeterminate permits, are perpetual; and all are subject to repeal
and alterations by the legislature. Hill et ai v. Antigo Water Co., 1909, 3 R.
G. 623, 723.
Weights. — In general 535
4
WATERS.
See Navigable Waters.
WAY AND STRUCTURES.
Apportionment of maintenance of way and structures expenses in the
determination of unit tosts for interurban railways, see Account-
ing, 74, 86.
for street railways, see Accounting, 143.
WEIGHING FACILITIES.
See also Station Facilities, 28-29.
Shipper's lack of facilities.
1. The fact that a shipper, through lack of facilities for ascertaining
weights, cannot load cars just as he would like to do does not prove the
unreasonableness of the rate or the minimum weight applicable. Brown
Bros. Lbr. Co. v. M. St. P. & S. S. M. R. Co., 1915, 15 R. C. 569, 574.
WEIGHT.
Relation of weight of article to space occupied as element considered in
making railroad rates, see Rates — Railroad, 151-152.
WEIGHT COSTS.
As matter considered in determining reasonableness of rates for express
companies, see Rates — Express, 11, 13.
WEIGHT-DISTANCE COSTS.
As matter considered in determining reasonableness of rates for express
companies, see Rates — Express, 14.
WEIGHT OF ARTICLES CARRIED.
As matter considered in determining reasonableness of railroad rates, see
Rates — Railroad, 194.
WEIGHTS.
I. IN GENERAL.
II. MINIMUM CARLOAD WEIGHTS.
III. MINIMUM EXPRESS RATES.
I. IN GENERAL.
Charges to be based upon actual weights.
1. The law does not permit charges to be based upon anything but
actual weights, and if an error in weighing occurs it must be corrected
536 Weights. — In general
and charges adjusted accordingly. Any other policy would manifestly
afford an opportunity for the indulgence of practices subversive of the
principle purpose of the statute which prohibits unjust discrimination.
Wheeler-Timlin Lbr. Co. v. C. M. & St. P. R. Co., 1910, 6 R. C. 434, 435.
II. MINIMUM CARLOAD WEIGHTS.
Basis of mininium weights.
2. Classification and minimum weights must necessarily rest upon
general and permanent rather than upon special and temporary conditions.
Crary v. M. St. P. cfc S. S. M. R. Co. et al, 1909, 3 R. C. 432, 439.
Commercial conditions.
3. Commercial conditions of a territory have always had an important
influence in the making of commodity rates, issuing of exception sheets,
etc. It is just as. proper that the same consideration should be given to
such local problems in the fixing of a minimum so long as the carrier is pro-
tected from carrying at carload rates which should properly go as less than
than carload. In re Rates on Agricultural Implements, 1913, 11 R. C. 508,
522. /
— ' — Minimum should he based upon practical loading capacity.
4. A scientific arrangement of tiers of bales, based upon abstract
mathematical calculation relating to dimensions of bales and cars re-
spectively, is not a fair measure of the loading capacity of a car in actual
practice. Loftus-Hubbard Elevator Co. v. W. C. R. Co., 1906, 1 R. C. 91,
96.
5. The proper principle to govern in fixing a minimum loading for a
car, when used in the transportation of any commodity, is the ascertain-
ment of the amount of the commodity that can be loaded when ordinary
care is exercised, and the establishing of the minimum within such limit.
Merrill Woodenware Co. v. C. M. & St. P. R. Co., 1908, 3 R. C. 54, 60;
Richards v. C. Sc N. W. R. Co., 1909, 3 R. C. 507, 512; Minneapolis Lbr.
Co. V. N. P. R. Co. et ai, 1909, 4 R. C. 206, 209; Standard Lime & Stone
Co. V. C. M. & St. P. R. Co. et al., 1912, 9 R. C. 228, 237; Oshkosh Excelsior
Mfg. Co. V. M. St. P. & S. S. M. R. Co., 1914, 15 R. C. 178, 179.
6. The minimum to apply on a car should not be greater than the full
weight limit permitted to be loaded in the car. Oshkosh Fuel Co. v.
C. (Sc N. W. R. Co., 1913, 11 R. C. 400, 401.
7. If it can be estabUshed that a commodity cannot be loaded to
minimum provided by tariff, the minimum weight on that commodity
should be reduced, even though it is necessary at the same time to increase
the rate, and the Commission is ready at all time to take up and remedy,
insofar as it is within its power, all matters of this nature. Allen v! C. M.
& St. P. R. Co., 1913, 12 R. C. 95, 99.
Sliding scale minimum.
8. In prescribing a basis for a sliding scale minimum, there are certain
factors to be considered which may or may not be reasonable in any given
case. Among these elements are (1) the size of car that is fixed as a stand-
ard, (2) the use of the length of the car as the sole basis for increase in
Weights. — Minimum carload weights 537
minimum weight, and (3) the fixing of the percentage per foot as the
amount to be added to a minimum on cars longer than the standard. In
re Rates on Agricultural Implements, 1913, 11 R. C. 508, 525.
Trafl&c conditions.
9. It is not fair to base an element in a freight classification such as a
minimum weight upon the classification of another territory where traffic
conditions may be very different. In re Rates on Agricultural Implements,
1913, 11 R. C. 508, 523. .
Determination of reasonable minimum. ,
10. The loading capacity of the cars cannot alone be the decisive
consideration in the determination of a reasonable minimum weight. Trade
considerations and commercial necessities deserve equal consideration with
the physical capacity of cars in establishing reasonable minima. Crary v.
M. St. P. & S. S. M. R. Co., et al. 1909, 3 R. C. 432, 438-439.
11. In applying the rule for determining a minimum weight based
on foot measurements, it would be unreasonable to apply a higher mini-
mum on account of an additional inch in the length of the car. OsMosh
Fuel Co. V. C. & N. W. R. Co., 1910, 6 R. C. 222, 226.
Double minimum charge.
12. The rules now in force are unreasonable, and the G. St. P. M. &
O. Ry. Co. is ordered to modify its tariff schedules so as to eliminate such
• double minima. In re Mixed Carloads of Grains and Seeds, 1910, 5 R. C.
711, 713.
Duty of carrier to furnish car adai>ted to the character of the
shipment.
13. It is the duty of a carrier, generally, to furnish a car adapted to
the transportation of the commodity designated, and having such capacity
that the minimum loading provisions will not result in an excessive charge
for the carriage. This is true in the absence of any request on the part
of the shipper for any particular kind or size of car. Loftus-Hubbard
Elev. Co. V. W. C. R. Co., 1 R. C. 91; Albert Trostel & Sons v. W. C. R. Co.,
1908, 2 R. C. 761, 762.
Failure to furnish cars of required size — Substitution of box cars
for flat cars.
14. It is the duty of a carrier, generally, to furnish a car adapted to
the transportation of the commodity designated, and having such capacity
that the minimum loading provisions will not result in an excessive
charge for the carriage. This is true in the absence of any request on
the part of the shipper for any particular kind or size of car. A Ibert
Trostel & Sons v. \V. C. R. Co., 1908, 2 R. G. 761, 762.
Substitution of larger cars.
15. When a shipper orders a car for a specific purpose the railway
company should supply a car which will meet that purpose fully, without
additional expense. Loftus-Hubbard Elevator Co. v. W. C. R. Co., 1906,
1 R. G. 91, 97; Franke Grain Co. v. C. & N. W. R. Co., 1908, 3 R. C. 182,
538 Weights. — Minimum carload weights
184; Colby Cheese Box & Silo Co. u. M. Si. P. & S. S. M. R. Co., 1914,
15 R. C. 469; Stevens v. C. <Sc N. W. R. Co., 1914, 15 R. G. 524, 526.
Failure to furnish cars of required size — Substitution of smaller
cars.
16. It is not reasonable that carriers unable to supply shippers with
sufficient cars of large or average capacity should make such minimum
loading requirements as can not be practically complied with as to the
smaller cars, in order that they may obtain as much earnings from
shipments therein as from those in the larger and superior cars. {Wiemer
<Sc Rich V. C. <Sc N. W. R. Co., 1907, 12 I^ G. G. R. 465.) Merrill
Wooden Ware Co. v. C. M. Sc St. P. R. Co.. 1908. 3 R. G. 54. 60-61.
Minima and rates — Rates changed through change in minimum
weights.
17. It is well known that rates can be changed indirectly through the
classification, including minimum weights. This is bad practice and
vitiates both rate making and systematic, not to speak of scientific
classification. Richards, v. C. Sc N. W. R. Co., 1909, 3 R. G. 507, 513.
Shortage in loading.
18. If the required minimum has for any reason not been loaded in a
car, the actual rate exceeds the nominal rate by an amount proportional
to the shortage in weight. Crary v. M. St. P.' Sc S. S. M. R. Co. et at.,
1909, 3 R. G. 432, 439.
Should be kept separate.
19. The rate is one thing. The minimum weight is another. The
two should be kept distinct and separate except in those relatively rare
cases in which it is impracticable to do so. Richards v. C. & N. W. R. Co.,
1909, 3 R. C. 507, 512-513.
Rules and regulations as to mininia.
20. It is unreasonable to fine a shipper, through the instrumentality
of an arbitrary rule governing minimum weights, for his failure to designate
complicated car dimensions, concerning which he can not be expected to
have knowledge, in ordering cars. Loftus-Hubbard Elevator Co. v. W. C.
R. Co., 1906, 1 R. C. 91, 98.
21. If the shipper desires any particular sized car, it is his duty to
order the same. In the absence of such order the carrier is permitted to
furnish such car as it has available for the transportation in question.
Krouskop V. C. M. <k St. P. R. Co., 1910, 6 R. G. 178, 181 ; Oshkosh Fuel Co.
V. C. M. & St. P. R. Co., 1910, 6 R. G. 199, 201.
Weighing facilities.
See also Station Facilities, 28-29.
22. The fact that a shipper, through lack of facilities for ascertaining
weights, cannot load cars just as he would Uke to do does not prove the
unreasonableness of the rate or the minimum weight applicable. Brown
Bros. Lbr. Co. v. M. St. P. <Sc S. S. M. R. Co., 1915, 15 R. G. 569, 574.
Withdrawal of Service ' 539
III. MINIMUM EXPRESS WEIGHTS.
Rules and regulations prescribing minimum weights, reasonableness of,
see Rates — Express, 5.
WESTERN CLASSIFICATION.
Jurisdiction of Commission over western classification insofar as it
affects intrastate shipments, see Railroad Commission, 107.
Trunk line rates take precedence over western classification, see Trunk
Line Rules, 1.
"WHAT THE TRAFFIC WILL BEAR."
As element considered in making railroad rates, see Rates — Railroad,
165-167.
WHEAT.
Reasonableness of rates on wheat, see Rates — Railroad, 241.
*
WHEELBARROWS.
Mixture privilege with agricultural implements, see Rates — Railroad,
200.
WHEY BUTTER.
Reasonableness of rates on whey butter, see Rates — Railroad, 296.
WHISKEY.
Reasonableness of rates on whiskey, see Rates — Railroad, 254.
WHOLESALE RATES.
Commutation tickets, see Tickets, 1-5.
WIRE PLANT EXPENSES.
Apportionment of wire plant expenses in the determination of unit costs
for telephone utilities, see Accounting, 166.
WITHDRAWAL OF SERVICE.
Regulations for withdrawal of service, see Rules and Regulations,
31-10.
Withdrawal of service permitted for reasonable length of time for violation
of rules and regulations of telephone utility, see Telephone
Utilities, 57-60.
540 Wood. — Zones
WOOD.
Establishment of joint rates on wood, see Rates — Railroad, 95-96.
Reasonableness of rates on wood, see Rates — Railroad, 298-302.
WOOD BOLTS.
Reasonableness of rates on bolts, see Rates — Railroad, 207.
WOOD PULP.
Reasonableness of rates on wood pulp, see Rates^Railroad, 274.
WORKING CAPITAL.
As element in the valuation of public utilities, see Valuation, 113-116.
YARDAGE FACILITIES.
See Station Facilities; Switch Connections.
YARD LIMITS.
Definition of the term "Yard Limits."
1^ Primarily the right to fix the limits of depot grounds rests with the
railway companies. If they seek to extend such grounds beyond reason-
able limits, they cannot escape liability because they have called something
a station ground that either was not used or was not reasonably necessary
for that purpose. The cases in which the court expressed a view that the
portion of the main track beyond a switch that was used for switching
purposes might be considered depot grounds, were cases when the railroads
had themselves, in a practical way, by the use of fences and cattle guards
or substitutes therefore, attempted to define the limits of their grounds.
Osceola Mill & Elev. Co. u. M. St. P. & S. S. M. R. Co., 1906, 1 R. C.
166, 173.
ZINC ORE.
Establishment of joint rates on zinc ore, see Rates — Railroad, 97.
Reasonableness of rates on zinc ore, see Rates — Railroad, 264.
ZONE SYSTEM RATES,
Alleged discrimination in zone system rates, see Discrimination, 56-59.
Commutation zone rates, see Rates — Street Railway, 4.
Zone system rates for street and interurban railways, see Rates —
Interurban, 10-12; Rates — Street Railway, 24-26.
for telephone toll rates, see Rates — Telephone, 15.
ZONES.
Fare zones, see Interurban Railways. 11.
CASES REPORTED
TABLE OF CASES REPORTED.
I. Bond Gases.
II. Bridge Cases.
III. Dealers' License Cases.
IV. Electric Utility Cases.
V. Electric Railway Cases.
VI. Express Cases.
VII. Gas Utility Cases.
VIII. Heating Utility Gases.
IX. Railroad Cases.
X. Telephone Gases.
XL Toll Bridge Cases.
XII. Water Utility Gases.
XI 1 1. Water Power Gases.
TABLE OF CASES REPORTED.
, - Volume and Page
I. BOND CASES.
In re Southern Wisconsin Ry. Co., 1907
Authority to issue bonds II 47
Southern Wisconsin Ry. Co., In re, 1907
Authority to issue bonds II 47
II. BRIDGE CASES.
In re West Algoma Street Bridge in Oshkosh, 1912
Safety of bridges VIII 441
'-, 1912
Safety of highway bridges over which railways are op-
erated IX 357
West Algoma St. Bridge, in Oshkosh, In re, 1912
Safety of bridges .....VIII 441
, , 1912
Safety of highway bridges over which railways are op-
erated IX 357
III. DEALERS' LICENSE CASES.
Grieb & Greene Co., In re Appl. for a Dealers' License, 1914
Issue of license to deal in securities XIV 140
In re Appl. Grieb &: Greene Co. for a Dealers' License, 1914
Issue of license to deal in securities XIV 140
IV. ELECTRIC UTILITY CASES.
a. Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity.
Cashton, Village of. In re Appl., 1908
For construction of municipal electric plant II 677
Fox River Millg. & P. Co., In re Appl, 1913
For construction of electric plant XI 552
In re Appl. Village of Cashton, 1908
For construction of municipal electric plant II 677
Fox River Millg. Sc P. Co., 1913
For construction of electric plant (. XI 552
Interstate Lt. Sc P. Co. et al, 1912
For extension of service to town of Mifflin, I a. Co X 603
M. L. H. & T. Co. El. Plant at Delafield, 1914
For operation of second electric utility in Delafield XV 497
Interstate Lt. & P. Co. et al.. In re Appl., 1912
For extension of service to town of Mifflin, la. Co X 603
Milwaukee, L. H. & T. Co., The, El. Plant at Delafield,
In re Appl., 1914
For operation of second electric utility in Delafield XV 497
Sheboygan, City of, v. Sheboygan Ry. & El. Co., 1914
For construction of municipal plant XIV 215
542 Cases Reported
Volume and Page
IV. ELECTRIC UTILITY CASES.
a. Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity.
Sheboygan Ry. Sc El. Co., City of Sheboygan v., 1914
For construction of municipal plant .', XIV 215
b. Rates and Service.
Alma Electric Light Co., In re AppL, 1907
Electric rates, readjustment of II 144
Arcadia, Village of. In re AppL, 1912
Electric rates, reasonableness of XI 216
Bayfield Mun. W. & Lt. Plant, In re Invest., 1913
Electric and water service XI 686
Beloit, City of, v. Beloit W. G. & El. Co., 1911
Electric, gas and water, rates and service VII 187
Beloit W. G. & El. Co., City of Beloit v., 1911
Electric, gas and water, rates and service VII 187
Berlin Public Service Co., Jones et al. v., 1914
Gas, electric and heating rates XV 121
Bloomer El. Lt. Plant, In re AppL, 1911
Electrie rates and service VI 506
Bloomer EL Lt. Sc P. Co., Refusal of Service, In re., 1915
Electric service, refusal of XV 612
Brodhead EL Co., In re, 1912
Electric service X 630
Browntown Mun. Lt. Plant, In re AppL, 1914
Electric rates, minimum charge XIV 560
Bruce W. & Lt. Comm., In re AppL, 1912
Electric rates, classification of moving picture arc IX 474
Burkhardt Milling Sc EL P. Co., In re AppL, 1914.
Electric rates, adjustment of XV 409
, Ross et al. v., 1910
Electric rates and service V 139
Burns v. La Crosse Gas & El. Co. ef aZ., 1911
Removal of telephone and electric poles VI 195
Cashton Light & Power Co., In re., 1908
Municipal acquisition of electric utility Ill 67
Caswell et al. v. City W. & Lt. Comm. of Ft. Atkinson, 1913
Electric and water rates XII 260
Chetek Light & Power Co., In re AppL, 1908
Electric rates, increase in II 662
• , , 1912
Electric rates, reasonableness of XI 227
Chilton, City of, v. Wis. Elec. Service Co. et al., 1908
Electric service II 326
Chippewa Falls Water Wks. & Lt. Co., In re Invest., 1910
Electric, gas and water rates V 302
, Cunningham et al. v., 1910
Electric, gas and water rates V 302
Cases Reported 543
Volume and Page
Chippewa Valley Ry. Lt. & P. Co., In re AppL, 1908
Electric rates, readjustment of II 311
, , 1912
Electric rates, increase in IX 305
-, 1912
Electric rates, increase in for flaming arc lamps IX 500
, , 1913
Electric rates, increase in XII 548
, In re Invest., 1912
Electric rates, reasonableness of X 692
, — -, 1913
Electric rates, reasonableness of XIII 19; 444
Clifton Lt. & P. Co., Wenzel et al. v., 1912
Electric service IX 222
Colby ct Abbott Bldg. Co. et al. In re Invest., 1912
Electric rates, reasonableness of IX 541
, , 1912
Electric rates, reasonableness of X 613
Columbus W. Sz Lt. Comm., In re AppL, 1913
Electric and water rates and water service XI 449
Commonwealth P. Co. et al.. In re Invest., 1912 •
Electric rates, reasonableness of IX 541
, , 1912
Electric rates, reasonableness of X 613
Connor Co., R., In re Invest, of, 1911
Electric rates and service VIII 80
Cumberland Mun. El. Ltg. Plant, In re AppL, 1909
Electric rates, increase in IV 214
Cunningham et al. v. Chippewa Falls W. Wks. Sc Lt. Co., 1910
Electric, gas and water rates, reasonableness of V 302
Darlington El. Lt. & W. P. Co., In re AppL, 1910
Electric rates and service, and water rates V 397
, , 1913
Electric rates, increase in XIII 344
Delavan Commercial Club et al. v. United Heat, Lt. & P. Co.,
1914
Electric rates, adjustment of / XV 505
Dodgeville v. Dodgeville El. Lt. <k P. Co., 1908
Street lighting rates, reasonableness of, adequacy of
I service II 392
Dodgeville EL Lt. <Sc P. Co., Dodgeville v., 1908
Street lighting rates, reasonableness of, adequacy of
service II 392
Dodgeville El. Lt. Co., In re Invest., 1914
Electric service XIII 642
Douglas et at. v. Equitable El. Lt. Co., 1913
Electric rates, reasonableness of XII 337
, , 1914
Electric rates, readjustment of XIV 381
544 Cases Reported
Volume and Page
, IV. ELECTRIC UTILITY CASES.
b. Rates and Service.
Durand Li. & P. Co., In re AppL, 1911
Electric rates, increase in VI 334
Eagle River Lt. Sz W. Co., In re AppL, 1911
Electric rates, readjustment of VI 521
Electric Theater et al. v. Lodi El. Lt. Plant, 1911
Electric rates and meters VII 745
Elroy Mun. W. <Sc Lt. Plant, Kittleson et al. v., 1914
Water and electric rates, reasonableness of ...XIV 485
Endeavor El. Lt. Sc P. Co., In re AppL, 1913
Electric rates, increase in XIII 448
Equitable EL Lt. Co., City of Lake Geneva v., 1911
Electric rates, meter rental : VI 203
, Douglass et al. v., 1913
Electric rates, reasonableness of XII 337
, v., 1914
Electric rates, readjustment of XIV 381
Evansville Mun. EL Lt Sc W. Plant, In re Invest, 1912
Electric and water rates, reasonableness of XI 197
Filter et at v. III. Northern Utilities Co., 1914
Electric service XV 383
Ft Atkinson W. & Lt. Comm., In re AppL, 1913
Electric and water rates, increase in XII 260; 729
Fox River Milling & P. Co., In re AppL, 1907
Electric rates, increase in II 135
Gilmanton Mill d: El. Plant, In re AppL, 1914
Electric rates, increase in XIV 152
Grand Rapids EL Co., In re Purchase, 1914
Municipal acquisition of electric plant XV 258
Green Bay v. Green Bay G. So El. Co., 1913
Gas and electric rates, reasonableness of XII 324
Green Bay G. Sc El. Co., Green Bay v., 1913
Gas and electric rates, reasonableness of... ;..XII 324
Greenwood Mun. Lt. Plant, In re AppL, 1910
Electric rates, minimum bill VI 60
Harrington et al. v. T. M. E. R. & L. Co., 1910
Electric power rates, reasonableness of VI 64
Hood et al. v. Monroe EL Co., 1914
Electric rates, readjustment of XIV 227
Illinois, N., Utilities Co., Filber et al. v., 1914
Electric service XV 383
In re AppL Alma Electric Light Co., 1907
Electric rates, readjustment of II 144
Arcadia, Village o/, 1912
Electric rates, reasonableness of -v -^^ ^^^
Bloomer EL Lt. Plant, 1911
Electric rates and service VI 506
Cases Reported 545
Volume and Page
In re Appl. Browntown Mun. Lf. Plant, 1914
Electric rates, minimum charge XIV 560
Bruce W. <Sc Lt. Comm., 1912
Electric rates, classification of moving picture arc IX 474
Burkhardt Milling & El P. Co., 1914
Electric rates, readjustment of XV 409
— Chetek Lt. cfc P. Co., 1908
Electric rates, increase in II 662
, 1912
Electric rates, reasonableness of XI 227
— Chippewa Valley Ry. Lt. & P. Co., 1908
Electric rates, readjustment of II 311
, 1912
Electric rates, increase in IX 305
, 1912
Electric rates for flaming arc lamps IX 500
-, 1913
Electric rates, increase in XII 548
— Columbus W. & Lt. Comm., 19lB
Electric and water rates and water service XI 449
— Cumberland Mun. Ltg. Plant, 1909
Electric rates, increase in IV 214
— Darlington El. Lt. & W. P. Co., 1910
Electric rates and service, and water rates.... V 397
, 1913
Electric rates, increase in XIII 344
- Durand Lt. Sc P. Co., 1911
Electric rates, increase in VI 334
- Eagle River Lt. & W. Co., 1911
Electric rates, readjustment of VI 521
- Endeavor El. Lt. & P. Co., 1913
Electric rates, increase in XIII 448
- Ft. Atkinson W. & Lt. Comm., 1913
Electric and water rates XII 260; 729
- Fox River Milling Sc P. Co., 1907
Electric rates, increase in II 135
- Gilmanton Mill & El. Plant, 1914
Electric rates, increase in XIV 152
- Greenwood Mun. Lt. Plant, 1910
Electric rates, minimum bill .....VI 61
- Jefferson Mun. El. Lt. & W. Plant, 1910
Electric and water rates V 555
- La Crosse Gas <Sc El. Co., 1907
Electric rates, increase in II 3
-, 1909
Electric rates, payment in advance IV 142
etal., 1911
Interpretation of accounting terms in contract VIII 18
.1911
Electric, gas and heating rates VIII 138
18
546 Cases Reported
Volume and Page
IV. ELECTRIC UTILITY CASES.
b. Rates and Service.
In re Appl. Lake Mills Lt. & W. Comm., 1912
Electric and water utilities, financial management XI 160
Lancaster El. Lt. Co., 1910
Electric rates and minimum bill VI 53
Madison G. & El. Co., 1913
Ordinance for removal of poles and wires of electric
utility, reasonableness of ordinance ..XI 293
— Manitowoc, City of, as El. & Water Utility, 1914
Electric and water rates, adjustment of... XV 212
— McGowan El. Li. ScP. Co., 1914
Electric rates, minimum charge XIV 325
— Medford Light <fc Heating Co., 1908
Electric rates, readjustment of II 421
— Menasha, City o/, 1913
Electric rates, increase in XIII 424
— Men. & Mar. Lt. <Sc Tr. Co., 1909,
Electric rates, readjustment of ..Ill 778
— Merrill Railway & Ltg. Co., 1907
Electric rates, increase in II 148
— Milton W. Lt. <Sc P. Co., 1914 '
Electric rates, minimum charge XIV 206
— Monticello El. Lt. Co., 1913
Electric rates, reasonableness of ; XI 265
— ML Horeb El. Lt. Co., 1910
Electric rates, increase in VI 44
— Mt. Horeb H. Lt. <Sc P. Co., 1914
Electric rates, increase in XIII ' 653
— Neshkoro Lt. <Sc P. Co., 1913
Electric rates, increase in XIII 52
— New Glarus Mun. El. Lt. <k W. Plant, 1912
Electric rates, increase in XI 53
— North Milwaukee Lt. Sc P. Co., 1909
Electric rates, readjustment of IV 89
— Portage EL Lt. Co., 1908
Electric rates, readjustment of II 258
— Red Cedar Valley El. Co., 1911
Electric rates, increase in VI 717
— Rhinelander P. Co., 1915
Electric rates, increase in XV 783
— Richland Center El. Lt. <Sc W. Plant, 1914
Electric and water rates.... XIV 590
— Sheboygan Ry. <Sc El. Co., 1914
Electric rates — street lighting XIV 208
— Stoughton Mun. El. Li. System, 1909
Electric rates Ill 484
Cases Reported 547
Volume and Page
In re Appl. Sun Prairie Mun. El. Plant, 1914
Electric rates, adjustment of XV 189
United Heat, Lt. & P. Co. of Delavan, 1914 '
Electric rates, adjustment of XV 505
Waupaca El. Lt. & R. Co., 1910
Electric and street railway rates, readjustment of V 190
- Whitehall, Village of, 1912
Electric rates, increase in IX 479
- Whitewater El. Lt. Co., 1914
Electric rates, adjustment of ■. XV 517
- Windsor Co., H. T., 1910
Electric rates, increase in V 171
Withee, Village of, 1914
Electric rates, increase in XIII 704
In re Brodhead El. Co., 1912
Electric service X 630
In re Cashton Light & Power Co., 1908
Municipal acquisition of electric utility Ill 67
In re Darlington El. Lt. Sc W. P. Co., 1910
Electric rates and service, and water rates V 397
In re Invest. Bayfield Mun. W. & Lt. Plant, 1913
Electric and water service XI 686
Chippewa Falls W. Wks. & Ltg. Co., 1910
Electric, gas and water rates .....V 302
Chippewa Valley Ry. Lt. & P. Co., 1912
Electric rates, reasonableness of X 692
,1913
Electric rates, reasonableness of XIII 19; 444
Colby & Abbot Bldg. Co. et al., 1912
Electric rates, reasonableness of IX 541
, 1912
Electric rates, reasonableness of X 613
Commonwealth P. Co. et al., 1912
Electric rates, reasonableness of IX 541
— , 1912
Electric rates, reasonableness of X 613
i?. Connor Co., 1911
Electric rates and service VIII 80
Dodgeville El. Lt. Co., 1914
Electric service XIII 642
Evansville Mun. EL Lt. & W. Plant, 1912
Electric and water rates XI 197
Janesville EL Co., 1913 ,
Electric service XII 570
La Crosse Gas Sc El. Co., 1908
Electric service II 670
Madison G. & El. Co., 1913
Gas and electric rates, reasonableness of XIII 259
548 Cases Reported
Volume and Page
IV. ELECTRIC UTILITY CASES.
b. Rates and Service.
In re Invest. Madison G. Sc El. Co., 1914
Gas and electric service, refusal of service : XIII 518
Mosinee El Li. & P. Co., 1914
Electric rates, reasonableness of XIII 712
Milw. Electric Rates, 1912
Electric rates, reasonableness of IX 541
, 1912
Electric rates, reasonableness of X 613
- Molitor Sc Hummell Realty Co. et al, 1912
Electric rates, reasonableness of IX 541
, 1912
Electric rates, reasonableness of X 613
- Mosinee El. Lt. Sc P. Co., 1914
Electric rates for pumping, reasonableness of XIV 743
- Neshonoc Lt. & P. Co., 1914
Electric service XIII 637
- Northwestern Lt. (Sc P. Co., 1911
Electric rates, reasonableness of VII 59
- Oconto El. Co. & Peoples Land & Mfg. Co., 1913
Electric rates, reasonableness of XII 584
- Plankinton El. Lt. & P. Co. et al, 1912
Electric rates, reasonableness of IX 541
, 1912
Electric rates, reasonableness of X 613
- Railway Exch. Bldg. Co. et al., 1912
Electric rates, reasonableness of IX 541
, 1912
Electric rates, reasonableness of X 613
— T. M. E. R. Sc L. Co. et al, 1912
Electric rates, reasonableness of IX 541
, 1912
Electric rates, reasonableness of X 613
Waterloo Mun. W. Sc El Plant, 1914
Water and electric rates, management XV 534
Wells P. Co. et al, 1912
Electric rates, reasonableness of IX 541
-. , 1912
Electric rates, reasonableness of X 613
In re Joint Appl Waupaca El Lt. Sc R. Co. and Waupaca, 1912
Electric street lighting VIII 586
, 1912
Electric street lighting , IX 310
In re Kaukauna Lt. Sc P. Co., 1911
Municipal acquisition of electric and gas utilities VIII 409
In re Kaukauna G. El Lt. Sc P. Co., 1913
Municipal acquisition of electric utility XII 189
Cases Reported 549
Volume and Page
In re Madison G. & El. Co., 1911
Electric and gas rates, reasonableness of VII 152
In re Manitowoc, City o/, 1914
Electric and water rates, readjustment of XIV 697
In re Merrill Ry. & Lt. Co., 1911
Electric utilities, standards of service... VIII 270
In re Pierce, Geo. M., 1913
Municipal acquisition of electric utility XII 88
In re Purchase El. PI. of Prairie du Sac Mill & Lt. Co., 1914
Municipal acquisition of electric utility XV 360
• Lt. PI. of United Heat, Lt. & P. Co. by Vill. of Sharon,
1914
Municipal acquisition of electric utility XV 238
Grand Rapids El. Co., 1914
Municipal acquisition of electric utility XV 258
In re Refusal of Service by Bloomer El. Lt. Sc P. Co., 1915
Electric service, refusal of XV 612
In re Service and Rates Stevens Point Ltg. Co., 1914
Electric rates, gas and electric service XIV 350
In re Standards for Gas and Electric Service, 1908
Standards of service for gas and electric utilities II 632
, 1913
Standards of service for gas and electric utilities. XII 418
In re Valuation Manitowoc El. Lt. Co., 1914
Municipal acquistion of, electric utility. XIII 452
Janesville Electric Co., In re Invest., 1913
Electric service XII 570
Jefferson Mun. EL Lt. <Sc W. Plant, In re AppL, 1910
Electric and water rates V 555
Jones et al. v. Berlin Public Service Co., 1914
Electric, gas and heating rates XV 121
Kaukauna, City of v. Kaukauna Gas, EL Lt. Sc P. Co., 1910
Electric service V 695
Kaukauna Gas, EL Lt. & P. Co., City of Kaukauna v., 1910
Electric service , V 695
, In re, 1911
Municipal acquisition of electric and gas utilities VIII 409
, , 1913
Municipal acquisition of electric utility XII 189
Kenosha EL Ry. Co. v. Kenosha G. & EL Co., 1911
Electric rates, reasonableness of VIII 119
Kenosha G. 8c El. Co., Kenosha El. Ry. Co. v., 1911 ^ •
Electric rates, reasonableness of VIII 119
Kittleson et aL v. Elroy Mun. W. & LL Plant, 1914
Electric and water rates XIV 485
La Crosse Gas Sc El. Co. et aL, Burns v., 1911
Electric and telephone poles, removal of VI 195
, In re AppL, 1907
Electric rates, increase in II 3
550 Cases Reported
Volume and Page
IV. ELECTRIC UTILITY CASES.
b. Rates and Service.
La Crosse Gas & El. Co., In re Appl. 1909
Electric rates, payment in advance IV 142
etal, , 1911
Interpretation of accounting terms in contract VIII 18
, , 1911
Electric, gas and heating rates VIII 138
, In re Invest., 1908
Electric service II 670
La Crosse Tel. Co. etal.. Burns v., 1911
Electric and telephone poles, removal of VI 195
La Crosse W. P. Co. et ai. In re Appl., 1911
Interpretation of accounting terms in contract VIII 18
Lake Geneva, City of, v. Equitable El. Lt. Co., 1911
Electric rates, meter rental VI 203
Lake Mills Li. & W. Comm., In re Appl, 1912
Electric and water utilities, financial management XI 160
Lancaster El. Lt. Co., In re Appl., 1910
Electric rates, minimum bill VI 53
Lodi El. Lt. Plant, El. Theater et at. v., 1911
Electric rates and meters VII 745
Madison, City of, Madison G. & El. Co. v., 1913
Ordinance for removal of poles and wires of electric utility,
reasonableness of ordinance... XI 293
Madison G. & El. Co. v. City of Madison, 1913
Ordinance for removal of poles and wires of electric
utility, reasonableness of ordinance XI 293
, In re, 1911
Electric and gas rates VII 152
, In re, 1914
Electric and gas service, refusal of XIII 518
, In re Invest., 1913
Electric and gas rates, reasonableness of XIII 259
, State Journal Prig. Co. et al. v., 1910
Electric and gas rates and service IV 501
Manitowoc, City of, v. Manilowoc El. Lt. Co., 1910
Electric rates and service V 360
, as El. Utility, In re Appl, 1914
Electric and water rates, adjustment of XV 212
-, In re, 1914
Electric and water rates XIV 697
Manitowoc El Lt. Co., In re Valuation, 1914
Municipal acquisition of electric utility XIII 452
, Manitowoc, City of, v., 1910
Electric rates and service V 360
Mayville Specialty Mfg. Co. v. Northwestern Lt. Sc P. Co., 1911
Electric rates, reasonableness of VII 59
Cases Reported 551
Volume and Page
McGowan El. Lt. & P. Co., In re AppL, 1914
Electric rates, minimum charge XIV 325
Medford Light & Heating Co., In re Appl., 1908
Electric rates, readjustment of II 421
Menasha, City of, In re AppL, 1913
Electric rates, increase in XIII 424
Menominee & Marinette Lt. & Tr. Co., In re, 1909
Electric rates, reasonableness of Ill 778
Merrill Railway &: Lighting Co., In re AppL, 1907
Electric rates, increase in II 148
, In re, 1911
Electric utilities, standards of service VIII 270
Milton W. Lt. 8c P. Co., In re AppL, 1914
Electric rates, minimum charge ...XIV 206
Milwaukee E. R. & L. Co., The, Harrington et al. v., 1910
Electric rates, reasonableness of VI 64
et al.. In re Invest., 1912
Electric rates, reasonableness of IX 541
, ,1912
Electric rates, reasonableness of X 613
Milwaukee Electric Rates, In re Invest., 1912
Electric rates, reasonableness of IX 541
. , , 1912
Electric rates, reasonableness of X 613
Molitor Sc Hummell Realty Co. et al.. In re Invest., 1912
Electric rates, reasonableness of IX 541
. , 1912
Electric rates, reasonableness of X 613
Monroe EL Co., Hood et al. v., 1914:
Electric rates, reasonableness of XtV 227
Monticello El. Lt. Co., In re AppL, 1913
Electric rates, reasonableness of XI 265
Mosinee El. Lt. & P. Co., In re Invest., 1914
Electric rates, reasonableness of XIII 712
, , 1914
Electric rates for pumping, reasonableness of XIV 743
ML Horeb EL Lt. Co., In re AppL, 1910
Electric rates, increase in VI 44
, , 1914
Electric rates, increase in XIII 653
J^eenah, City of, v. Wis. Tr. LL H. & P. Co., 1915
Municipal acquisition of business of electric utility XV 626
Neshkoro Lt. & P. Co., In re AppL, 1913
Electric rates, increase in XIII 52
Neshonoc Lt. & P. Co., In re Invest., 1914
Electric service XIII 637
Newby et al. v. Sun Prairie Mun. EL Plant, 1914
Electric rates, adjustment of XV 189
552 Cases Reported
Volume and Page
IV. ELECTRIC UTILITY CASES.
b. Rates and Service.
New Glarus Mun. EL Lt. & W. Plant, In re Appl., 1912
Electric rates, increase in XI 53
North Milwaukee Lt. & P. Co., In re Appl., 1909
Electric rates, readjustment of IV 89
Northwestern Lt. & P. Co., In re Invest., 1911
Electric rates, reasonableness of VII 59
, Mayville Specialty Mfg. Co. v., 1911
Electric rates, reasonableness of VII 59
Oconto El. Co. et al.. In re Invest., 1913
Electric rates, reasonableness of XII 584
Oshkosh Savings cfc Trust Co. et al.. City of Chilton v., 1908
Electric service II 326
Peoples Land & Mfg. Co. et al., In re Invest., 1913
Electric rates, reasonableness of XII 584
Pierce, Geo. M., In re Val. El. Lt. Plant & Property of, 1913
Municipal acquisition of electric utility XII 88
Plankinton El. Lt. cfc P. Co. et at.. In re Invest., 1912
Electric rates, reasonableness of IX 541
, , 1912
Electric rates, reasonableness of X 613
Portage El. Li. Co., In re Appl., 1908
Electric rates, readjustment of II 258
Prairie City El. Co., Rosencrans et al. v., 1913
Electric rates and service XII 413
Prairie du Sac Mill Sz Lt. Co., El. Pit. of. In re Purchase, 1914
Municipal acquisition of electric utility XV 360
Railway Exch. Bldg. Co. et al.. In re Invest., 1912
Electric rates, reasonableness of IX 541
, , 1912
Electric rates, reasonableness of X 613
Red Cedar Valley El. Co., In re Appl, 1911
Electric rates, increase in VI 717
Rhinelander, City of, v. Rhinelander Ltg. Co., 1912
Electric rates, reasonableness of IX 406
Rhinelander Ltg. Co., City of Rhinelander v., 1912
Electric rates, reasonableness of IX 406
Rhinelander Power Co., In re Appl., 1915
Electric rates, increase in XV 783
Richland Center El. Lt. & W. Plant, In re Appl., 1914
Electric and water rates XIV 590
Ripon, City of, v. Ripon Lt. Sc W. Co., 1910
Electric, gas and water rates and service V 1
Ripon Lt. & W. Co., City of Ripon v., 1910
Electric, gas and water rates and service V 1
Rosencrans et al. v. Prairie City El. Co., 1913
Electric rates and service XII 41
3
Cases Reported 553
Volume and Page
Ross et al. v. Burkhardt Millg. Sc El P. Co., 1910
Electric rates and service V 139
Sharon, Village of. El Pit. of United Heat,Ll & P. Co., In re
Purchase o/, 1914
Municipal acquisition of electric utility XV 238
Sheboygan, City of, v. Sheboygan Lt. P. Sz Ry. Co., 1908
Electric rates and service II 249
u. Sheboygan Ry. & El. Co., 1911
Electric rates and service, street lighting VI 353
Sheboygan LI P. & Ry. Co., City of Sheboygan v., 1908
Electric rates and service II 249
Sheboygan Ry. SzEl Co., City of Sheboygan v., 1911
Electric rates and service, street lighting VI 353
, In re Appl, 1914
Electric rates, street lighting XIV 208
Standards for Gas and Electric Service, In re, 1908
Standards of service for gas and electric utilities II 632
, , 1913
Standards of service for gas and electric utilities XII 418
State Journal Prtg. Co. et al. v. Madison Gas Sc El Co., 1910
Electric and gas rates and service IV 501
Stevens PL Ltg. Co., In re Invest., 1914 "
Electric rates, gas and electric service XIV 350
Stoughton Municipal El Lt. System, In re Appl, 1909
Electric rates Ill 484
Sun Prairie Mun. El. Utility, In re Appl, 1914 ,
Electric rates, adjustment of XV 189
, Newby et al. v., 1914
Electric rates, adjustment of XV 189
Superior Comm'l Club et al v. Superior W. Lt. & P. Co., 1912
Electric, gas and water rates X 704
Superior W. Lt. Sc P. Co., Superior Comm'l Club et al v., 1912
Electric, gas and water rates X 704
The M. E. R. ScL. Co., Harrington et al v., 1910
Electric power rates VI 64
, In re Invest., 1912
Electric rates, reasonableness of IX, 541; X, 613
The Oshkosh Savings Sc Trust Co. et al. City of Chilton, v., 1908
Electric service II 326
United Heat, Lt. Sc P. Co. of Delavan, In re Appl, 1914
Electric rates, adjustment of XV 505
United Heat, Lt. Sc Pr. Co. El. Plant, In re Purchase of by
Vill of Sharon, 19U
Municipal acquisition of electric utility XV 238
Waterloo Mun. W. Sc El Plant, In re Invest., 1914
Electric and water rates, management XV 534
Watertown, City of, v. Watertown G. Sc El Co., 1914
Electric rates, street lighting XIV 604
554 Cases Reported
Volume and Page
IV. ELECTRIC UTILITY CASES.
b. Rates and Service.
Watertown G. <Sc EL Co., City of Watertown v., 1914
Electric rates, street lighting XIV 604
Waukesha, City of, v. Waukesha G. & El. Co., 1913
Electric and gas rates, reasonableness of XIII 100
Waukesha G. & EL Co., City of Waukesha v., 1913
Electric and gas rates, reasonableness of XIII 100
Waupaca EL Lt. Sc R. Co., In re AppL, 1910
Electric and street railway rates .V 190
and Waupaca, In re Joint AppL, 1912
Electric rates, street lighting VIII 586
-, 1912
Electric rates, street lighting IX 310
Waupaca, In re Joint AppL Waupaca EL Lt. Sc R. Co. and,
1912
Electric rates, street lighting VIII 586
Wells P. Co. et al.. In re Invest., 1912
Electric rates, reasonableness of IX 541
, , 1912
Electric rates, reasonableness of X 613
Wenzel et aL v. Clifton LL <&: P. Co., 1912
Electric service IX 222
Whitehall, Village of. In re AppL, 1912
Electric rates, increase in IX 479
Whitewater, City of, v. Whitewater EL LL Co., 1910
Electric service VI 132
Whitewater EL LL Co., City of Whitewater v., 1910
Electric service VI 132
, In re AppL, 1914
Electric rates, adjustment of XV 517
Windsor Co., H. T., In re AppL, 1910
Electric rates, increase in V 171
Wis. Elec. Service Co. et aL, City of Chilton v., 1908
Electric service II 326
Wis. Tr.LL H. & P. Co., City of Neenah v., 1915
Municipal acquisition of business of electric utility XV 626
Withee, Village of. In re AppL, 1914
Electric rates, increase in XIII 704
Wylie,F. M., In re Refusal of Madison G. ScEl. Co. to furnish
service to, \^\4i
Electric and gas service, refusal of XIII 518
V. ELECTRIC RAILWAY CASES
a. Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity
In re AppL Milw. ScFox River Valley Ry. Co., 1908
For construction of line II 580
Cases Reported ' 555
Volume and Page
In re AppL Milw. <Sc Fox River Valley Ry. Co., 1910
For construction of line V 466
Milwaukee L. H. & T. Co., 1909
For construction of line Ill 288
Milwaukee & Fox River Valley Ry. Co., In re AppL, 1908
For construction of line II 580
, , 1910
For construction of line V 466
Milwaukee Lt. H. 6c T. Co., In re AppL, 1909
For construction of line Ill 288
b. Rates and Service
AppL of Ch. 362, Laws of 1905, to Street Rys., In re., 1906
Street railways, appl. of ch. 362, Laws 1905 — "Report of
accidents" I 178
Bauernfeind et aL v. T. M. E. R. & L. Co. et at., 1914
Street railway, suburban rates XV 330
Beuscher et aL v. T. M. E. R. & L. Co. et aL, 1914
Street railway, suburban rates XV 330
Brown v. Janesville Street R. Co., 1910
Street railway track, abandonment of IV 757
Buergin, Jr., et aL v. Southern Wis. R. Co., 1913
Street railway service XI 762
V. ,1913
Street railway service XII 167
Caledonia, Town of, v. CM. <Sc MiL EL Ry. Co., 1912
Interurban railway crossings X 420
V. , 1913
Interurban railway crossing, protection of XI, 564; XII, 386
V. T. M. E. R. 6c L. Co., 1914
Interurban rates, reasonableness of XIII 475
Cedar Grove v. C. 6c N. W. R. Co. et aL, 1913
Interurban railway and railroad crossings, protection of.XII 712
Chicago 6c M. E. R. Co., City of Kenosha v., 1913
Interurban railway crossing, protection of XI 560
< , v., 1913
Interurban railways, station facilities XII 257
, T. M. E. R. 6c L. Co. v., 1913
Street railway facilities, joint use of tracks XIII 299
— — , Caledonia, Town of, v., 1912
Interurban railway crossings X 420
, v., 1913
Interurban railway crossing, protection of XI 564
, v., 1913
Interurban railway crossing, protection of •. XII 386
, Town of Pleasant Prairie v., 1913
Interurban railway crossing, protection of XI 557
, Somers, Town o/, y., 1913
Interurban railway crossing, protection of ...XI, 581; XII, 377
556 Cases Reported
Volume and Page
V. ELECTRIC RAILWAY CASES.
b. Rates and Service.
Chicago & N. W. R. Co. et ai, Cedar Grove v., 1913
Interurban railway and railroad crossings, protection of. .XII 712
, New Berlin v., 1913
Interurban railway and railroad crossings, protection of.. ..XII 358
Chippewa Val. R. Lt. & P. Co., In re, 1914
Street railway, relocation of track and adequacy of
service XIV 713
Chromaster v. M. N. R. Co., 1912
Interurban rates and car service VIII 734
D. , 1912
Interurban car service IX 534
Cusick et al. v. T. M. E. R. & L. Co. et al., 1912
Street railway rates, single fare limits X 314
De Pere, City of, v. Green Bay Tr. Co., 1910
Interurban tickets V 604
Deakin et al. v. T. M. E. R. & L. Co., 1912
Interurban rates, reasonableness of X 306
Dravo et al. v. T. M. E. R. Sc L. Co. et al., 1914
Street railway suburban rates XV 330
Duluth Street Ry. Co., Superior Comm'l Club et al. v., 1912
Street railway rates, reasonableness of XI 1
Eastern Wis. R. & Lt. Co., In re Petition, 1909
Crossing of electric road over steam road IV 127; 132
, Lamb v., 1911
Interurban railway rates and fare zones VI 473
East Milwaukee, Village of, v. T. M. E. R.hSc L. Co. et al..
Street railway rates, single fare limits X 358
Elver V. So. Wis. Ry. Co., 1912
Street railway service IX 1; XI 67
Finn et al. v. Wis. Tr. Lt. H. & P. Co., 1914
Interurban railway, stopping of cars XIV 811
Froehlich et al. v. T. M. E. R. & L. Co., 1910
Street railway service IV 439
Fullmer v. Wausau Street R. Co., 1909
Street railway rates and fare zones Ill 520; 555
V. , 1910
Street railway rates V 114
V. , 1914
Street railway rates and service XV 246
Gillett V. T. M. E. R. cfc L. Co., 1907
Street railway service I 689
et al. V. T. M. E. R. & L. Co. et al., 1912
Street railway rates, single fare limits X 337
Granville, Town of, v. M. N. R. Co., 1913
Interurban railway crossing, protection of XI 612
Cases Reported 557
Volume and Page
Green Bay, City of, v. Green Bay Tr. Co., 1911
Street railway, extension of line VII 715
Green Bay Tr. Co., City of De Pere v., 1910
Interurban tickets V 604
, Green Bay, City of, v., 1911
Street railway, extension of line VII 715
, Robb ei al. v., 1912
Street railway track curves and elimination of noise VIII 688
Hiestand et al. v. So. Wis. Ry. Co., 1910
Street railway service VI 162
Howard ei al. v. T. M. E. R. & L. Co. et al., 1914
Street railway, suburban rates XV 330
In re Appl. of Ch. 362, Laws 1905, to Street Railways, 1906
Street railways, appl. of ch. 362, Laws 1905, "report of
accidents" I 178
Manitowoc & Northern Tr. Co., 1911
Interurban railway rates VI 395
T. M. E. R. &: L. Co., 1914
Interurban rates, reasonableness of XIII 475
Waupaca El. Lt. Sc R. Co., 1910
Street railway and electric rates V 190
In re Chippewa Val. Ry. Lt. Sc P. Co., 1914
Street railway, relocation of track and adequacy of
service XIV 713
In re Double Transfers in' the city of Milwaukee, 1912
Street railways, double transfers X , 352
In re Interlocking Plants, Rules Governing the Construction,
Maintenance and Operation of, 1913
Street railway and railroads Ill 78
In re Invest. La Crosse <Sc 0. St. R. Co., 1910
Street railway service and station facilities VI 124
M. N. R. Crossings in Port Washington, 1913
Interurban railway crossings, protection of XII 550
T. M. E. R. & L. Co., 1913
Street railway service XIII 178
In re Milwaukee Suburban and Interurban Ry. Rates, 1914
Street railway, suburban rates XV 330
In re Modification Milwaukee Urban Fare Decision, 1915
Street railway rates XV 724
In re Petition Eastern Wis. R. & Lt. Co., 1909
Crossing of electric road over steam road IV 127; 132
M. L. H. & T. Co. et al, 1914
Interurban rates, reasonableness of XIII 475
T. M. E. R. & L. Co. et al, 1914
Interurban rates, reasonableness of XIII 475
In re Southern Wisconsin Ry. Co., 1907
Street railway, appl. for authority to issue bonds II 47
In re West Algoma Street Bridge in Oshkosh, 1912
Electric railway, safety of bridge VIII 441
558 Cases Reported
Volume and Page
V. ELECTRIC RAILWAY CASES.
b. Rates and Service.
Interlocking plants, Rules Governing the Construction, Main-
tenance and Operation of. In re, 1913
Street railways and railroads XII 718
Janesville, City of v. Rockford & Interurban Ry. Co., 1912
Interurban cars, routing of IX 502
Janesville Street R. Co., Brown v., 1910
Street railway track, abandonment of IV 757
Jones V. Wis. Ry. Lt. Sc P. Co., 1914
Street railway service XIV, 518; XV, 174
Kenosha, City of, v. Chi. & Milw. El. R. Co., 1913
Interurban railway crossing, protection of XI 560
u, , 1913
Interurban railway, station facilities ...XII 257
V. Kenosha El. R. Co. et al., 1913
Interurban Railway service XII 508
Kenosha El. R. Co. et al.. City of Kenosha v., 1913
Interurban railway service XII 508
Koenig et al. v. T. M. E. R. & L. Co. et al, 1912
Street railway rates, single fare limits X 337
La Crosse Sz 0. St. Ry. Co., In re Invest., 1910
Street railway service and station facilities VI 124
La Crosse, City of, et al., Lang et al. v., 1909
Street railway, abandonment of track Ill 292
La Crosse City R. Co. et al., Lang et al. v., 1909
Street railway, abandonment of track Ill 292
Lamb v. Eastern Wis. R. Sc Lt. Co., 1911
Interurban railway rates and fare zones VI 473
Lang et al. v. City of La Crosse et al., 1909
Street railway, abandonment of track Ill 292
Manitowoc & Northern Tr. Co., In re AppL, 1911
Interurban railway rates VI 395
MoTtel et al. v. T. M. E. R. Sc L. Co. et al, 1914
Street railway, suburban rates XV 330
Martin v. So. Wis. R. Co., 1911
Baggage, articles constituting personal baggage VIII 311
McKenney et al v. Wis. Tr. L. H. Sc P. Co., 1914
Interurban railway, stopping of cars ...XIV 811
McLaughlin v. Wis. El R. Co., 1909
Interurban passenger cars, heating of Ill 400
Merrill, City of, v. Merrill R. Sc Lt. Co., 1910
Street railway, extension of line .V 418
Merrill R. Sc Lt. Co., City of Merrill v., 1910
Street railway, extension of line V 418
Milwaukee, City of, v. T. M. E. R. Sc L. Co., 1907
Street railway service and facilities I 662
Cases Reported 559
Volume and Page
Milwaukee, City of, v. T. M. E. R. & L. Co., 1911
Street railway, routing of cars VIII 295
u. , 1912
Street railway, routing of cars VIII 535
V. , 1912
Street railway rates X 1
V. , 1912
Street railways, double transfers X 352
- V. , 1913
Street railway service XI 338; 430
— , et at., Woehsner v., 1915
Street railway rates XV 724
Milwaukee E. R. & L. Co., The, Caledonia, Town of, v., 1914
Interurban rates, reasonableness of XIII 475
V. Chi. & Milw. El. R. Co., 1913
Street railway facilities, joint use of track XIII 299
, Cusick et al. v., 1912
Street railway rates, single fare limits X 314
, Deakin et al. v., 1912
Interurban rates, reasonableness of X 306
• et at., Dravo et al. v., 1914
Street railway suburban rates XV 330
, East Milwaukee, Village of, v., 1912
Street railway rates, single fare limits X 358
, Froelich et al. v., 1910
Street railway service IV 439
, In re AppL, 1914
Interurban rates, reasonableness of XIII 475
, In re Invest., 1913
Street railway service XIII 178
- et al., In re Petition, 19i4
Interurban rates, reasonableness of XIII 475
— , Koenig et al. v., 1912
Street railway rates, single fare limits X 337
— , Milwaukee, City of, v., 1911
Street railway, routing of cars VIII 295
_ , 1912
Street railway, routing of cars ..VIII 535
- . 1912
Street railway rates X 1
_ , 1912
Street railways, double transfers X 352
-, v., 1913
Street railway service XI 338; 430
- V. M. N. R. Co., 1913
Street railway facilities, joint use of track..-. XIII 268
— , Pollworth Co. v., 1909
Street railway, stopping of cars Ill 392
560 Cases Reported
Volume and Page
V. ELECTRIC RAILWAY CASES.
b. Rates and Service.
Milwaukee E. R. <Sc L. Co., The, Racine, City of, v., 1913
Interurban railway service XII 388
- — , v., 1914
Street railway service and rates XIV 148
, Stearns v., 1914
Interurban rates, reasonableness of XIII 475
, Strache v., 1913
Interurban railway service Mil 404
, Tower v., 1914
Interurban rates, reasonableness of XIII 475
— '■ — , Twenty-Second Ward Advancement Assn. v., 1914
Street railway, routing of cars XIV 788
, v., 1915
Street car service XV 593
, Washington Park Adv. Assn. v., 1911
Street railway service VII 19
-, et al. v., 1913
Street railway service XIII 178
, Waukesha, City of , v., 1913
Interurban railway, service and station facilities XIII 89
— et al., Woehsner v., 1915
Street railway rates XV 724
, Woodmont Country Club v., 1910
Interurban car service V 525
Milwaukee Lt. Ht. & Tr. Co. et al., Cusick et al. v., 1912
Street railway rates, single fare limits X 314
, Drauo et al. v., 1914
Street railway, suburban rates ! XV 330
, East Milwaukee, Village of, v., 1912
Street railway rates, single fare limits X 358
et al.. In re Petition, 1914
Interurban rates, reasonableness of XIII 475
, Kenosha, City of, v., 1913
Interurban railway service XII 508
, Koenig et al. v., 1912
Street railway rates, single fare limits X 337
• , New Berlin v., 1913
Interurban railway and railroad crossings, protection of.XII 358
, Schmieder et al. v., 1914
Interurban rates, reasonableness of XIII 475
, Waukesha, City of, v., 1913
Street railway, service and station facilities XIII 89
, Woehsner i;., 1915
Street railway rates XV 724
Milwaukee N. R. Co. et al.. Cedar Grove v., 1913
Interurban railway and railroad crossings, protection of.XII 712
Cases Reported 561
Volume and Page
Milwaukee N. R. Co. ef al., Chromasier p., 1912
Interurban rates and car service VIII 734
, p., 1912
Interurban car service IX 534
, Granville, Town of, v., 1913
Interurban railway crossing, protection of XI 612
, T. M. E. R. & L. Co. v., 1913 '
Street railway facilities, joint use of tracks XIII 268
Milwaukee N. R. Crossings in Port Washington, In re Invest.,
1913
Interurban railway crossings, protection of XII 550
Milwaukee Suburban and Interurban Ry. Rates, In re, 1914
Street railway, suburban rates XV 330
Milwaukee Urban Fare Decision, Modification, In re, 1915
Street railway rates XV 724
Neenah, City of, v. Wis. Tr. Li. H. & P. Co. et al., 1910
Power of Commission with respect to joint rates and
interchange of traffic IV 471
V. ,1911
Street railway rates VI 398; 690
New Berlin v. C. <Sc N. W. R. Co. et al, 1913
Interurban railway and railroad crossings, protection of.. ..XII 358
Northwest Neighborhood Civic Club et al. v. T. M. E. R. <Sc
L. Co., 1913
Street railway ser\ice, adequacy of XIII 178
Paulu et al. v. T. M. E. R. & L. Co. et al., 1914
Street railway, suburban rates XV 330
Pleasant Prairie, Town of, v. Chi. & Milw. El. R. Co., 1913
Interurban railway crossing, protection of XI 557
Pollworth Co. V. T. M. E. R. & L. Co., 1909
Street railways, stopping of cars Ill 392
Racine, City of, v. T. M. E. R. & L. Co., 1913
Interurban railway service XII 388
• V. , 1914
Street railway service and rates XIV 148
Robb et al. v. Green Bay Tr. Co., 1912
Street railway track curves and elimination of noise VIII 688
Rockford & Interurban Ry. Co., City of Janesville v., 1912
Interurban railway, routing of cars IX 502
, Schicker v., 1911
Interurban railway rates VI 695
Rodolf et al. v. So. Wis. R. Co., 1913
Street railway rates and service XII 49; 707
V. , 1914
Street railway service XIV 598
Rules Governing the Construction, Maintenance & Operation
of Interlocking Plants, In re, 1913
Street railways and railroads XII 718
562 Cases Reported
Volume and Page
V. ELECTRIC RAILWAY CASES.
b. Rates and Service.
Schicker u. Rockford Sz I. R.^o., 1911
Interurban railway rates VI 695
Schmieder v. M. L. H. & T. Co., 1914
Interurban rates, reasonableness of XIII 475
Somers, Town of, v. C. Sc M. El. R. Co., 1913
Interurban railway crossing, protection .of XI 581
u. , 1913
Interurban railway crossing, protection of XII 377
Southern Wis. R. Co., Buergin et at. v., 1913
Street railway ser\dce XI, 762; XII, 167
, Elver v., 1912
Street railway service IX, 1; XI, 67
, Hiestand et at. v., 1910
Street railway service VI 162
— — , In re, 1907
Street railway, appl. for authoritj^ to issue bonds II 47
, Martin v., 1911
Baggage, articles constituting personal baggage VIII 311
, Rodolf et al. v., 1913
Street railway rates and service XII 49; 707
, v., 1914
Street railway service XIV 598
South Milwaukee et al. City of, v. T. M. E. R. ScL. Co. et at.,
1914
Street railway, suburban rates XV 330
Stearns v. T. M. E. R. Sc L. Co., 1914
Interurban rates, reasonableness of XIII 475
Strache v. T. M. E. R. ScL. Co., 1913
Interurban railway service : XII 404
Superior Comm'l Club et al. v. Duluth St. Ry. Co., 1912 '
Street railway rates, reasonableness of XI 1
The M. E. R. & L. Co., Town of Caledonia v., 1914
Interurban rates, reasonableness of XIII 475
V. C. & M. EL R. Co., 1913
Street railway facilities, joint use of tracks XIII 299
et al., Dravo et al. v., 1914
Street railway, suburban rates ' , XV 330
, Gillett v., 1907
Street railway service I 689
— , In re Appl., 1914
Interurban rates, reasonableness of XIII 475
— , In re Invest., 1913
Street railway service XIII 178
— , In re Petition, 1914
Interurban rates, reasonableness of XIII 475
Cases Reported 563
Volume and Page
The M. E. R. Sc L. Co., Milwaukee v., 1907
Street railway service and facilities ; I 662
, V. 1911
Street railway, routing of cars VIII 295
, v., 1912
Street railway, routing of cars VIII 535
, v., 1913
Street railway service XI 338; 430
u. M. N. R. Co., 1913
Street railway facilities, joint use of tracks XIII 268
, Pollworth Co. v., 1909
Street railway, stopping of cars Ill 392
, Racine, City of, v., 1914
Street railway service and rates XIV 148
, Stearns v., 1914
Interurban rates, reasonableness of XIII 475
, Strache v., 1913
Interurban railway service XII 404
, Tower v., 1914
Interurban rates, reasonableness of XIII 475
, Twenty-Second Ward Adv. Assn. v., 1914
Street railway, routing of cars XIV 788
, v.y 1915
Street railway service XV 593
— , Washington Park Adv. Assn. p., 1911
Street railway service VII 19
-, v., 1913
Street railway service .XIII 178
— et al., Waukesha, City of, u., 1913
Street railway, service and station facilities XIII 89
— , Woehsner v., 1915
Street railway rates XV 724
Tower v. T. M. E. R. Sc L. Co., 1914
Interurban rates, reasonableness of XIII 475
et al. V. et al., 1914
Street railway, suburban rates XV 330
Twenty-Second Ward Adv. Assn. u. T. M.E. R. ScL. Co., 1914
Street railway, routing of cars XIV 788
'- v. , 1915
Street car service XV 593
Vosburg v. Wis. El. Ry. Co., 1912
Interurban rates and fare zones VIII 709
Washington Park Adv. Assn. v. T. M.E. R. &L. Co., ^911
Street railway service VII 19
v. , 1913
Street railway service XIII 178
Waukesha, City of, v. T. M. E. R. &L. Co. et al., 1913
Street railway, service and station facilities XIII 89
564 Cases Reported
Volume and Page
V. ELECTRIC RAILWAY CASES.
b. Rates and Service.
Waupaca El. Lt. cfc R. Co., In re AppL, 1910
Electric and street railway rates V 190
, et al.y Wis. Veterans' Home v.y 1915
Electric railway, carrying of freight XV 656
Waupaca, City of, Intervenor, Wis. Veterans' Home et al., v.,
1915
Electric railway, carrying of freight XV 656
Wausau Street R. Co., Fullmer v., 1909
Street railway fare zones and rates of fare ; Ill 520; 555
, v., 1910
Street railway rates V 114
, u., 1914
Street railway rates and service XV 246
Wauwatosa, City of, et al. v. T. M. E. R. 6c L. Co. et at., 1914
Street railway, suburban rates XV 330
West Algoma Street Bridge in Oshkosh, //z re, 1912
Electric railway, safety of bridge VIII 441
West Allis, City of, et al. v. T. M. E. R. <Sc L. Co. et al, 1912
Street railway rates, single fare limits X 314
V. , 1914
Street railway, suburban rates XV 330
West Allis Single Fare League et al. v. T. M. E. R. & L. Co.
et al., 1912
Street railway rates, single fare limits X 314
Wisconsin El. R. Co., McLaughlin v., 1909
Interurban railway, heating of passenger cars Ill 400
et al., Neenah, City of, v., 1910
Electric railway, power of commission with respect to
joint rates and interchange of traffic IV 471
et at., Neenah, City of, v., 1911
Street railway rates VI 398; 690
, Vosburg v., 1912
Interurban rates and fare zones VIII 709
Wisconsin Ry. Lt. & P. Co., Jones v., 1914
Street railway service XIV, 518- XV, 174
Wisconsin Tr. L. H. <Sc P. Co., McKenney et al. v., 1914
Interurban railway, stopping of cars XIV 811
et al., Neenah, City of, v., 1910
Power of Commission with respect to joint rates and
interchange of tralTic IV 471
, v., 1911
Street railway rates VI 398; 690
Wis. Veterans' Home v. Waupaca El. Lt. & R. Co. et al., 1915
Electric railway, carrying of freight XV 656
Woehsner v. City of Milwaukee et al., 1915
Street railway rates XV 724
Cases Reported 565
Volume and Page
Woodmont Country Club v. T. M. E. R. & L. Co., 1910
Interurban car service V 525
VI. EXPRESS CASES.
Rates and Service.
Adams Express Co. et al., Merchants Sz Mfrs. Assn. of Mil-
waukee v., 1913
Express rates and service XII 1
, v., 1914
Express rates, reasonableness of XIII 666
, Strauss v., 1909
Express delivery service Ill 556
American Express Co. et at., M. Carpenter Baking Co. et al. v.,
1911
Express rates, reasonableness of VIII 1
, Gray Sc Zentner v., 1914
Express rates on laundry, reasonableness of XIV 817
, Merchants Sc Mfrs. Assn. of Milwaukee v., 1913
Express rates and service XII 1
, v., 1914
Express rates, reasonableness of XIII 666
, Souvenir Novelty Co. v., 1907
Reasonableness of rules I 731
, Strauss v., 1909
Express delivery service Ill 556
Bennison Sc Lane Co. et al. v. Wells Fargo Sc Co. et at., 1911
Express rates, reasonableness of VIII 1
Carpenter Baking Co. et al. v. Wells Fargo Sc Co. et al., 1911
Express rates, reasonableness of VIII 1
Cabin's Baking Co. et al. v. Wells Fargo Sc Co. et al., 1911
Express rates, reasonableness of VIII 1
Express Rates, In re Invest., 1913
Express rates and service XII 1
, , 1914
Express rates, reasonableness of XIII 666
Gray Sc Zentner v. American Express Co., 1914
Express rates on laundry, reasonableness of XIV 817
Gross v. U.S. Express Co., 1909
Express rates, refund on shipments of baskets Ill 342
Heineman Lbr. Co. v. Wells Fargo Sc Co., 1914
Express delivery service XIII 594
In re Invest. Express Rates, 1913
Express rates and service XII 1
, 1914
Express rates, reasonableness of XIII 666
Jaeger et al. v. Wells Fargo Sc Co. et al., 1911
Express rates, reasonableness of VIII 1
M. Carpenter Baking Co. et al. v. Wells Fargo Sc Co. et al., 1911
Express rates, reasonableness of VIII 1
566 Cases Reported
Volume and Page
VI. EXPRESS CASES.
Rates and Service.
Merchants Sz Mfrs. Assn. of Milwaukee v. Wells Fargo Sc Co.
et at., 1913
Express rates, and service XII 1
V. — , 1914
Express rates, reasonableness of XIII 666
National Express Co. et al., Merchants & Mfrs. Assn. of
Milwaukee v.', 1913
Express rates and service ..; XII 1
, v., 1914
Express rates, reasonableness of XIII 666
Northern Express Co. et al., Merchants^ Mfrs. Assn. of
Milwaukee y., 1913
Express rates and service XII 1
— , - — v., 1914
Express rates, reasonableness of XIII 666
Skiles Bakery Co. et al. v. Wells Fargo & Co. et al., 1911
Express rates, reasonableness of VIII 1
Souvenir Novelty Co. v. American Express Co., 1907
Reasonableness of rules.... , I 731
Stern et al. v. Wells Fargo & Co. et al., 1911
Express rates, reasonableness of VIII 1
Strauss v. American Express Co. et al., 1909
Express delivery service Ill 556
United States Express Co. et al., M. Carpenter Baking Co. et al.
p. 1911
Express rates, reasonableness of VIII 1
, Gross v., 1909
Express rates, refund on shipments of baskets Ill 342
, Merchants & Mfrs. Assn. of Milwaukee v., 1913
Express rates and service XII 1
— -, v., 1914
Express rates, reasonableness of XIII 666
, Strauss v., 1909
Express delivery service Ill 556
Wells Fargo & Co. et al., M. Carpenter Baking Co. et al. v., 1911
Express rates, reasonableness of VIII 1
, Heineman Lbr. Co. v., 1914
Express delivery service XIII 594
, Merchants Sc Mfrs. Assn. of Milwaukee p., 1913
Express rates and service XII 1
. v., 1914
Express rates, reasonableness of XIII 666
Western Express Co. et al., M. Carpenter Baking Co. et al. v.,
1911
Express rates, reasonableness of VIII 1
Cases Reported 567
Volume and Page
Western Express Co. et ai, Merchants <fc Mfrs.'Assn. of
Milwaukee y., 1913
Express rates and service XII 1
, v., 1914
Express rates, reasonableness of XIII 666
VII. GAS UTILITY CASES.
Rates and Service.
Beloit, City of, v. Beloit W. G. & El. Co., 1911
Gas, electric and water rates and service VII 187
Beloit W. G. & El. Co., City of, Beloit v., 1911
Gas, electric and water rates and service VII 187
Berlin Public Service Co., Jones et al. v., 1914
Gas, electric and heating rates XV 121
Chippewa Falls Water Works & Lt. Co., In re Invest., 1910
Gas, electric and water rates V 302
, Cunningham et al. v., 1910
Gas, electric and water rates V 302
Cunningham et al. v. Chippewa Falls Water Wks & Lt. Co., 1910
Gas, electric and water rates V 302
Green Bay, City of, v. Green Bay G. & El. Co., 1913
Gas and electric rates XII 324
Green Bay G. & El. Co., City of Green Bay v., 1913
Gas and electric rates XII 324
, In re AppL, 1910
Gas rates, increase in V 101
In re AppL La Crosse G. Sc El. Co., 1911
Gas, electric and heating rates VIII 138
Manitowoc Gas Co., 1908
Gas rates, adjustment of Ill 163
,1913
Gas rates, increase in XIII 325
In re Invest. Chippewa Falls Water Works ScLtg. Co., 1910
Gas, electric and water rates V 302
Madison G. & El. Co., 1911
Gas and electric rates VII 152
, 1913
Gas and electric rates, reasonableness of XIII 259
, 1914
Gas and electric service, refusal of XIII 518
In re KaukaunaLt. & P. Co., 1911
Municipal acquisition of gas and electric utilities VIII 409
In re Service and Rates Stevens Pt. Ltg. Co., 1914
Gas and electric service, electric rates XIV 350
In re Standards for Gas cfc Electric Service, 1908
Standards of service for gas and electric utilities II 632
, 1913
Standards of service for gas and electric utilities XII 418
568 Cases Reported
Volume and Page
VII. GAS UTILITY CASES.
Rates and Service.
Jones et al. v. Berlin Public Service Co., 1914
Gas, electric and heating rates, XV 121
KaukaunaLt. <Sc P. Co., In re., 1911
Municipal acquisition of gas and electric utilities VIII 409
La Crosse Gas & El. Co., In re Appl., 1911
Gas, electric and heating rates VIII 138
Lothrop et al. v. Sharon, Village of, 1912
Gas and water rates and installation of meters VIII 479
Madison G. Sc El. Co., In re Invest., 1911
Gas and electric rates VII 152
, , 1913
Gas and electric rates, reasonableness of XIII 259
, , 1914
Gas and electric service, refusal of XIII 518
— — , State Journal Prtg. Co. et al. v., 1910
Gas and electric rates and service IV 501
Manitowoc Gas Co., In re Appl., 1908
Gas rates, readjustment of Ill 163
, , 1913
Gas rates, increase in XIII 325
Meyer et al. v. Sheboygan G. Lt. Co., 1912
Gas rates, readjustment of IX 439
v. , 1913
Gas rates, readjustment of XI 309
Milwaukee, City of, v. Milwaukee Gas Lt. Co., 1913
Gas rates, reasonableness of XII 441
Milwaukee G. Lt. Co., City of Milwaukee v., 1913
Gas rates, reasonableness of XII 441
■ , Stern v., 1913
Gas rates, reasonableness of XII 441
Neenah, City of v. Wis. Tr. Lt. H. & P. Co., 1911
Gas rates, readjustment of VII 477
V. , 1911
Gas rates, increase in VIII 251
Portage American Gas Co., Yanko et al. v., 1913
Gas rates, readjustment of ;.: XIII 136
Racine, City of, v. Racine Gas Lt. Co., 1911
Gas rates, readjustment of VI 228
Racine Gas Lt. Co., City of Racine v., 1911
Gas rates, readjustment of VI 228
Ripon, City of, v. Ripon Light & W. Co., 1910
Gas, electric and water rates and service V 1
Ripon Lt. <k W. Co., City of Ripon v., 1910
Gas, electric and water rates and service V 1
Sharon, Village of, Lothrop et al. v., 1912
Gas and water rates and installation of meters VIII 479
Cases Reported 569
Volume and Page
Sheboygan G. Lt. Co., Meyer et al. v., 1912
Gas rates, readjustment of IX 439
, v., 1913
Gas rates, readjustment of XI 309
Standards for Gas and Electric Service, In re, 1908
Standards of service for gas and electric utilities II 632
, , 1913
Standards of service for gas and electric utilities XII 418
State Journal Prtg. Co. et al. v. Madison Gas & El. Co., 1910
Gas and electric rates and service IV 501
Stern v. Milwaukee Gas Lt. Co., 1913
Gas rates, reasonableness of XII 441
Stevens Pt. Ltg. Co., In re Service and Rates, 1914
Gas and electric service, electric rates XIV 350
Superior Commit Club et al. v. Superior W.Lt. So P. Co., 1912
Gas, electric and water rates X 704
Superior W.Lt. S: P. Co., Superior Commit Club et al. v., 1912
Gas, electric and water rates X 704
Waukesha, City of, v. Waukesha G. Sc El. Co., 1913
Gas and electric rates, reasonableness of XIII 100
Waukesha G. & El. Co., City of Waukesha v., 1913
Gas and electric rates, reasonableness of XIII 100
Wisconsin Tr. Lt. H. & P. Co., Neenah, City of, v., 1911
Gas rates, readjustment of VII 477
, i;., 1911
Gas rates, increase in VIII 251
Wylie, F. M., In re Refusal of Madison G. ScEl. Co. to furnish
service /o, 1914
Gas and electric service, refusal of XIII 518
Yanko et al. v. Portage American Gas Co., 1913
Gas rates, readjustment of XIII 136
VIII. HEATING UTILITY CASES
Rates and Service.
Berlin Public Service Co., In re Invest., 1912
Thermostats for heating utility X 468
, Jones et al. v., 1914
Gas, electric and heating rates .XV 121
In re Appl. La Crosse G. & El. Co., 1911
Electric, gas and heating rates VIII 138
In re Invest. Berlin Public Service Co., 1912
Thermostats for heating utiUty X 468
In re Rates of Milw. Central Heating Co. et al., 1908
Heating rates, reasonableness of II 302
Jones et al. v. Berlin Public Service Co., 1914
Gas, electric and heating rates XV 121
La Crosse G. Sz El. Co., In re Appl., 1911
Electric, gas and heating rates VIII 138
570
Cases Reported
Volume and Page
VIII. HEATING UTILITY CASES.
Rates and Service.
Milwaukee Central Heating Co. et at.. In re Rates, 1908
Heating rates, reasonableness of II 302
INTERURBAN RAILWAY CASES, see Electric Railway Cases.
IX. RAILROAD CASES.
a. Baggage. i. Rates and Refunds.
b. Certificate of Convenience j. Station Facilities.
and Necessity. k. Switch Connections.
c. Classification. 1. Telegraph Service.
d. Construction. m. Tell Tales.
e. Crossings. n. Train Service.
f. Culverts. o. Transfer Companies.
g. Freight Packages. p. Warehouses. ♦
h. Head Lights.
a. Baggage.
Chicago, M. <Sc St. P. R. Co., Green v., 1911 -
Articles constituting personal baggage VIII 115
Green v. C. M. & St. P. R. Co., 1911
Articles constituting personal baggage VIII 115
Martin v. So. Wis. Ry. Co., 1911
Articles constituting personal baggage VIII 311
Southern Wis. R. Co., Martin v., 1911
Articles constituting personal baggage VIII 311
b. Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity.
Chicago St. P. M. & 0. R. Co., In re AppL, 1911
For construction of line VII 741
Fairchild Sc N. E. R. Co., In re AppL, 1911
For construction of line VII 755
Great N. R. Co., In re AppL, 1909
For construction of line Ill 266
In re AppL C. St. P. M. & 0. R. Co., 1911
For construction of line VII 741
Fairchild & N. E. R. Co., 1911
For construction of line VII 755
G. N. R. Co., 1909
For construction of line Ill 266
M. St. P. & S. S. M. R. Co., 1910
For construction of line * V 637
Minneapolis St. P. & S. S. M. R. Co., In re AppL, 1910
For construction of line V 637
c. Classification.
Chicago So N. W. R. Co. et al.. Northwestern Mfg. Co. et al. v.,
1914
Classification of farm wagons, farm trucks, gasoline
engine trucks, logging trucks and extra wagon boxes.... XI 1 1 751
Chicago B. & Q. R. Co., New York Fish Co. v., 1908
Change in classification of fish boxes II 613
Cases Reported 571
Volume and Page
Chicago, B. Sc Q. R. Co., Northwestern Mfg. Co. et al. v., 1914
Classification of farm wagons, farm trucks, gasoline
engine trucks, logging trucks and extra wagon boxes. ...XIII 751
Chicago, M. & St. P. R. Co. et al.. Northwestern Mfg. Co. et al.
v., 1914
Classification of farm wagons, farm trucks, gasoline
engine trucks, logging trucks and extra wagon boxes... XI 1 1 . 751
Chicago, St. P. M. & 0. R. Co. et al.. Northwestern Mfg. Co.
et al. v., 1914
Classification of farm wagons, farm trucks, gasoline
engine trucks, logging trucks and extra wagon boxes. ...XIII 751
Duluth S. S. & A. R. Co. et al.. Northwestern Mfg. Co. et al.
v., 1914
Classification of farm wagons, farm trucks, gasoline
engine trucks, logging trucks and extra wagon boxes....XIII 751
Fairchild & N. E. R. Co. et al.. Northwestern Mfg. Co. et al.
v., 1914
Classification of farm wagons, farm trucks, gasoline
engine trucks, logging trucks and extra wagon boxes ...XIII 751
Green Bay & W. R. Co. et al.. Northwestern Mfg. Co. et al. v.,
1914
Classification of farm wagons, farm trucks, gasoline
engine trucks, logging trucks and extra wagon boxes. .XIII 751
Illinois C. R. Co. et al.. Northwestern Mfg. Co. et al. v., 1914
Classification of farm wagons, farm trucks, gasoline
engine trucks, logging trucks and extra wagon boxes.... XI 1 1 751
Tola & N. R. Co. et al.. Northwestern Mfg. Co. et al. v., 1914
Classification of farm wagons, farm trucks, gasoline
engine trucks, logging trucks and extra wagon boxes. . . .XI II 75 1
Kewaunee, G. B. & W. R. Co. et al.. Northwestern Mfg. Co.
et al. v., 1914
Classification of farm wagons, farm trucks, gasoline
engine trucks, logging trucks and extra wagon boxes. ...XIII 751
La Crosse & S. E. R. Co. et al.. Northwestern Mfg. Co. et al.
v., 1914
Classification of farm wagons, farm trucks, gasoline
engine trucks, logging trucks and extra wagon boxes.. ..XIII 751
Marinette, T. <fc W. R. Co. et al.. Northwestern Mfg. Co. et al.
v., 1914
Classification of farm wagons, farm trucks, gasoline
engine trucks, logging trucks and extra wagon boxes... XI 1 1 751
Minneapolis, St. P. <Sc S. S. M. R. Co. et al.. Northwestern
Mfg. et al. v., 1914
Classification of farm wagons, farm trucks, gasoline
engine trucks, logging trucks and extra wagon boxes. . . .XI II 75 1
Mineral Point cfc N. R. Co. et al., Northwestern Mfg. Co. et al.
v., 1914
Classification of farm wagons, farm trucks, gasoline
engine trucks, logging trucks and extra wagon boxes... XI 1 1 751
572 Cases Reported
Volume and Page
IX. RAILROAD CASES.
c. Classification.
New York Fish Co. v. C. B. Sz Q. R. Co., 1908
Change in classification of fish boxes II 613
Northern P. R. Co. et ah. Northwestern Mfg. Co. et al. v., 1914
Classification of farm wagons, farm trucks, gasoline
engine trucks, logging trucks and extra wagon boxes... XII I 751
Northwestern Mfg. Co. et al. v. C. <Sc N. W. R. Co. et al., 1914
Classification of farm wagons, farm trucks, gasoline
engine trucks, logging trucks and extra wagon boxes. ...XIII 751
Stanley, M. & P. R. Co. et al.. Northwestern Mfg. Co. et al. v.,
1914
Classification of farm wagons, . farm trucks, gasoline
engine trucks, logging trucks and extra wagon boxes ... XI 1 1 751
Waupaca-Green Bay R. Co. et al.. Northwestern Mfg. Co. et al. v.,
1914
Classification of farm wagons, farm trucks, gasoline
engine trucks, logging trucks and extra wagon boxes. ...XIII 751
Wisconsin & M. R. Co. et al.. Northwestern Mfg. Co. et al. v.,
1914
Classification of farm wagons, farm trucks, gasoline
engine trucks, logging trucks and extra wagon boxes.... XIII 751
Wisconsin & N. R. Co. et al.. Northwestern Mfg. Co. et al. v.,
1914
Classification of farm wagons, farm trucks, gasoUne
engine trucks, logging trucks and extra wagon boxes.... XI 1 1 751
d. Construction.
In re Appl. M. St. P. & S. S. M. R. Co., 1908
Construction of railroad, approval of specification II 386
W. Sz N. M. R. Co., 1908
Construction of railroad, approval of specification II 362
Minneapolis, St. P. cfc S. S. M. R. Co., In re Appl., 1908
Construction of railroad, approval of specification II 386
Wisconsin & N. M. R. Co., In re Appl., 1908
Construction of railroad, approval of specification II ' 362
e. Crossings.
Albany, Town of, v. C M. & St. P. R. Co., 1912
Protection of crossing X 483
Aldrich St. Crossing, Milwaukee, In re Invest., 1912
Protection of crossing XI 147
Almena, Town of, v. C. St. P. M. <Sc 0. R. Co., 1914
Relocation of highway XIV 128
V. M. St. P. <Sc S. S. M. R. Co., 1913
Protection of crossing XI 621
Amherst, Town of, v. M. St. P. Sc S. S. M. R. Co., 1914
Protection of crossing .^ XV 494
Cases Reported 573
Volume and Page
Ashippun, Town of, v. M. S. & N. W. R. Co., 1913
Protection of crossing XII 119
Baldwin, Village of, v. C. St. P. M. Sc 0. R. Co., 1913
Protection of crossing XIII 76
Barron's Crossing (2}/2 miles southwest of Comstock), on line
of C. St. P. M. & 0. R. Co., In re Invest., 1914
Relocation of highway XIV 128
Beaver Dam, City of, v. C. M. & St. P. R. Co., 1912
Protection of crossing X 474
, Town of, V. C. M. & St. P. R. Co., 1913
Protection of crossings XI 662
, Town Board of, v. M. S. & N. W. R. Co., 1912
Separation of grades IX 471
Blackman et al. v. C. & N. W. R. Co., \^\2
Protection of crossings, and station facilities IX 50
Blooming Grove, Town of, Dane Co., Hanchett Crossing, In re,
1914
Protection of crossing XV 45
Boscobel, City of, v. C. M. <Sc St. P. R. Co., 1912
Protection of crossing X 423
v. , 1914
Protection of crossings , XV 296
Buffalo, Town of, v. M. S. & N. W. R. Co., 1912
Protection of crossing IX 538
Byron, Town of, v. M. St. P. Sc S. S. M. R. Co., 1912
Protection of crossing XI 95
Cadott, Village of, v. M. St. P. Sz S. S. M. R. Co., 1915
Protection of crossing XV 596
Cambria, Village of, et al, v. C. M. & St. P. R. Co., 1913
Protection of crossing XII 501
Campbell v. C. & N. W. R. Co., 1907
Separation of grades II 70
, Town of, v. C. B. Sc Q. R. Co., 1914
Installation of crossing XV 21
Cassville, Highway near. In re Invest, 1913
Relocation of highway XIII 86
Cedar Grove, Village of, v. C. & N. W. R. Co. et al., 1913
Protection of crossings XII 712
Champney et al., M. S. <Sc N. W. R. Co. v., 1910
Separation of grades.... V 592
Chestnut St. Crossing, Eau Claire, In re Invest., 1913
Protection of crossing XIII 74; 628
Chicago <Sc N. W. R. Co., Blackman et al., v., 1912
Protection of crossings and station facilities IX 50
, Campbell v., 1907
Separation of grades II 70
, et al.. Village of Cedar Grove v., 1913
Protection of crossings ^ XII 712
574 Cases Reported
Volume and Page
IX. RAILROAD CASES.
e. Crossings.
Chicago & N. W. R. Co., Cleveland, Town of, v., 1914
Protection of crossing XIII 729
, Crossing of. In re Invest., 1912
' Separation of grades X 618
et al.y Crossing near Calvert, In re, 1912
Protection of crossing VIII 519
, Crossing in Beaver Dam, In re, 1912
Protection of crossing IX 381
• , Crossings near Dodgeville, In re, 1912
Protection of crossings IX 520
, Crossings in Town of Gale, In re Invest., 19X4
Protection of crossing XIV 445
, Crossing near Milton Jet., In re, 1912
Protection of crossing IX 379
, Crossing North of Racine, In re Invest., 1914
Separation of grades XIV 454
, Deerfield, Town of, p., 1913
Protection of crossings ^ XII 676
, Elcho, Town of, v., 1914
Protection of crossing XIV 796
, Fond du Lac, Town Board of, v., 1913
Protection of crossing XII 123
, Ft. Atkinson, City of, v., 1913
Protection of crossing XIII 69
■ , , v., 1914
Protection of crossing XV 250
, Friendship, Town of, v., 1913
Protection of crossing XI 733
, Geneva, Town of, v., 1914
Protection of crossing XIV 481
-r— , Gillett, Town of, v., 1912
Installation of crossing IX 535
et al.. Grand Rapids, City of, v., 1913
Protection of crossings XIII 395
, Greenfield, Town of, v., 1912
Separation of grades IX 270
, v., 1913
Protection of crossing XI 362
, La Prairie, Town of, v., 1913
Protection of crossing .' XIII 440
, Marathon City, Village of, v., 1911
Protection of crossing VIII 28
et at., Marshfield, City of, v., 1913
Protection of crossing XII 59
, Menomonee, Town of, v., 1914
Protection of crossing XIV 549
Cases Reported 575
Volume and Page
Chicago <Sc N. W. R. Co., Merton, Town of, v., 1913
Protection of crossing ? XI 606
et al., Milwaukee, City of, v., 1912
Separation of grades IX 193
, v., 1913
Protection of crossing XI 344;360;615
, Mt. Horeb, Village of, v., 1912
Protection of crossings X 623
, v., 1913
Separation of grades XII 495
et al.. New Berlin, Town of, v., 1913
Protection of crossings XII 358
, Oakfield, Town of, v., 1913
Protection of crossing XII 683
et al. Town of Oshkosh v., 1913
Protection of crossing XII ' 372
, Racine, City of, v., 1912
Protection of crossing IX 354
, v., 1913
Separation of grades XI 740
, v., 1914
Separation of grades XIV 783
, Salem, Town of, v., 1912
Protection of crossing X 510
, v., 1913
Protection of crossing XI 322
, Sparta, City of, v., 1912
Protection of crossing XI 165
, Sullivan, Town o/", y., 1914
Protection of crossing XIV 320
, Waunakee, Village of, v., 1913
Protection of crossing XII 380
, Wauwatosa, Town of, v., 1911
Protection of crossing VII 451; 453; 455; 621; 625
, y., 1911
Restoration of highway ...VII 709
, i;., 1911
Separation of grades VII 737; 760
, v., 1912
Restoration of highway IX 262
, v., 1912
Separation of grades IX 276
, West Allis, City of, v., 1911
Separation of grades ,VII 493
, Westport, Town of, v., 1912
Alteration of crossing IX 218
, Wien, Town of, v., 1914
Protection of crossing XIV 435
576 Cases Reported
Volume and Page
IX. RAILROAD CASES.
e. Crossings.
Chicago & N. W. R. Co., Wilton, Town of, v., 1913
Protection of crossing XI 598
. v., 1914
Protection of crossing XIV 334
Chicago, B. Sc Q. R. Co., Town of Campbell v., 1914
Installation of crossings XV 21
et al. Crossing near Calvert, In re Invest., 1912
Protection of crossing XI 159
■ , In re Invest. Highway crossing near Cassville on line of,
1913
Relocation of highway XIII 86
Chicago, M. & St. P. R. Co., Town of Albany v., 1912
Protection of crossing X 483
, Beaver Dam, City of, v., 1912
Protection of crossing X 474
, Beaver Dam, Town of, v., 1913
Protection of crossing XI 662
, City ofBoscobel v., 1912
Protection of crossings X 423
, v., 1914
Protection of crossings XV 296
, Cambria, Village of, et al. v., 1913
Protection of crossing XII 501
, Columbus, City of, v., 1912
Protection of crossing, and station facilities IX 576
, Crossing Accident near Bardwell, In re, 1912
Protection of crossing VIII 471
■ , Crossing at Beaver Dam, In re, 1912
Protection of crossings IX 523
, Crossing near Camp Douglas, In re, 1912
Protection of crossing IX 328
, , 1913
Elimination of crossing XII 524
, Crossings in Cross Plains, In re Invest., 1914
Protection of crossing XIV 343
, Crossing near New Lisbon, In re, 1912
Protection of crossing VIII 511
, Cross Plains, Town of, v., 1914
Protection of crossing XIV 343
, Cunningham et al. v., 1911
Protection of crossing VIII 513
, Dent et al. v., 1914
Protection of crossing XV 203
et al. Drummond Road Crossing on lines of, in Eau
Claire, In re Invest., 1914
Protection of crossing XIV 104
Cases Reported 577
Volume and Page
Chicago, M. 6c St. P. R. Co., Everts et al. v., 1907
Protection of crossing I 712
, Fall River, Village of, v., 1910
Protection of crossing IV 778
, Fredonia, Town of, v., 1913
Protection of crossing XII 516
, Green Bay, City of, v., 1913
Protection of crossing XII 383
, Hubbard, Town of , v., 1910 •
Protection of crossing VI 128
, ,1911
Protection of crossing VI 672
, In re Invest. Chestnut St. Crossing, on line of, in Eau
Claire, 1913
Protection of crossing : XIII 74
, In re Invest. Chestnut St. Crossing on line of, in Eau
Claire, 1914
Protection of crossing... XIII 795
, Lyndon, Town of, v.^ 1913
Protection of crossing XII 251
, Madison, Town of, v., 1913
Separation of grades ..XII 395
— , Marinette, City of, v., 1910
Protection of crossing V 455
— , Mill Street Crossing at La Crosse, 1913
Separation of grades '. .^ XIII 145
-, Miller v., 1912
Protection of crossings X 499
— , in Milwaukee, Grade Sep., In re, 1915
Separation of grades XV 762
— et al., Milwaukee, City of, v.^ 1912
Separation of grades IX 193
-, v., 1912
Protection of crossing IX 515
- v., 1913
Protection of crossing XI 344; 350; 353
— , v., 1915
Separation of grades .XV 762
— , Mineral Point v., 1912
Protection of crossing VIII 693
— , Monroe, City of, v., 191A
Protection of crossing ; XIV 176
— Mt. Pleasant, Town of, v., 1913
Separation of grades XII 749
— , New Holstein, Village of, v., 1909
Protection of grossing IV 364
— , Oconomowoc, City of, v., 1913
Protection of crossing XII 84
19
578 Cases Reported
Volume and Page
IX. RAILROAD CASES.
e. Crossings.
Chicago, M. & St. P. R. Co. ei al., Oshkosh, City of, v., 1911
Protection of crossing VIII 75; 291
, Pewaukee, Town of, v., 1913
Protection of crossing XI 658
, Racine, City of, v., 1913
Protection of crossing XII 407
, Remington, Town of, v., 1915
Construction of crossing , XV 609
, Rhine, Town of, v., 1910
Restoration^ and maintenance of highway V 184
, Ripon, City of, v., 1913
Protection of crossing XII 100
, Rueckert et al. v., 1914:
Protection of crossing XIII 749
, Von Rueden v., 1914
Protection of crossing XV 272
, Wauzeka, Town of, v., 1912 ,
Protection of crossing ..X 426
Chicago, St. P. M. & 0. R. Co., Almena, Town of, v., 1914
Relocation of highway XIV 128
, Baldwin, Village of, v., 1913
Protection of crossing...' XIII 76
— ' — , Barron'' s Crossing {2\ miles southeast of Comstock) on
line of. In re Invest., 1914
Relocation of highway XIV 128
, Crossing near Columbia Station, In re, 1912
Protection of crossing VIII 516
, Crossing in Eau Claire, In re, 1914
Separation of grades XV 24
, Crossing, Yolo, In re Invest., 1912
Protection of crossing X 528
et al. Drummond Road Crossing on lines of, in Eau
Claire, In re Invest., 1914
Protection of crossing XIV 104
, Elk Mound, Village of, u:, 1913
Protection of crossing XI 654
, Fairchild, Town of, v., 1915
Protection of crossing XV 755
, Fall Creek v., 1907
Protection of crossing I 310
, Hewitt, Town of, v., 1912
Protection of crossing XI 79
, In re Invest., 1912
Protection of crossing VIII 733
, Lucas, Town of, v., 1913
Protection of crossing XI 592; XII 703
Cases Reported 579
Volume and Page
Chicago, St. P. M. <Sc 0. R. Co., Mentor, Town of, i;., 1912
Protection of crossing X 434
, Merritlan, Village of, v., 1914
Protection of crossing XIV 315
, Millston, Town of, v., 1913
Protection of crossing XII 400
— , New Richmond, City of, v., 1915
Protection of crossing XV 752
— , St. Joseph, Town of, v., 1913
Protection of crossing XI 737
-, Stanton, Town of, v., 1913
Protection of crossing XI 595
• , Streeter et aL v., 1912
Restoration of crossing , X 531
Cleveland, Town of, v. C. Sc N. W. R. Co., 1914
Protection of crossing XIII 729
Columbus V. C. M. Sc St. P. R. Co., 1912
Protection of crossing and station facilities IX 576
Couriland, Town of, et al. v. C. M. Sc St. P. R. Co., 1913
Protection of crossings.. XII 501
Cross Plains, Town of, v. C. M. & St. P. R. Co., 1914
Protection of crossings XIV 343
Cunningham et al. v. C. M. Sc St. P. R. Co., 1911
Protection of crossing VIII 513
Deerfield, Town of, v. C. & N. W. R. Co., 1913
Protection of crossing XII 676
Dent et al. v. C. M. & St. P. R. Co., 1914 -
Protection of crossing XV 203
Division Street Crossing in Dodgeville, In re, 1912
Protection of crossing IX 367
, In re Invest., 1912
Protection of crossing XI 151
Drummond Road Crossing on lines of C. M. & St. P. R. Co.
et al. in Eau Claire, In re Invest., 1914
Protection of crossing XIV 104
Drummond Road Crossing on lines of C. St. P. M. Sc 0. R. Co.
et al. in Eau Claire, In re Invest., 1914
Protection of crossing .' XIV 104
Duluth S. S. <Sc A. R. Co. et al.. City of Superior v., 1911
Separation of grades VI 674
Eau Claire, In re Invest., Chestnut St. Crossing in, 1913
Protection of crossing XIII 74
,—.1914
Protection of crossing XIII 628
Elcho, Town of, v. C. & N. W. R. Co., 1914
Protection of crossing XIV 796
Elk Mound, Village of, v. C. St. P. M. <Sc 0. R. Co., 1913
Protection of crossing XI 654
580 '__ Cases Reported _^___
Volume and Page
IX. RAILROAD CASES.
e. Crossings.
Everts et al. v. C. M. & St. P. R. Co., 1907
Protection of crossing I 712
Fairchild, Town of, v. C. St. P. M. & 0. R. Co., 1915
Protection of crossing XV 755
Fall Creek v. C. St. P. M. & 0. R. Co., 1907
Protection of crossing I 310
Fall River, Village of, v. C. M. & St. P. R. Co., 1910
Protection of crossing : IV 778
Farmington, Town of, v. M. St. P. & S. S. M. R. Co., 1913
Protection of crossing XI 624
Fernhaber Crossing east of Schleisingerville, In re, 1912
Separation of grades XI 86
Fitchburg, Town of, v. I. C. R. Co., 1913
Protection of crossing XIII 403
' Fond du Lac, Town Board of, v. C. & N. W. R. Co., 1913
Protection of crossing XII 123
Ft. Atkinson, City of, v. C. & N. W. R. Co., 1913
Protection of crossing XIII 69
-^ V. . 1914
Protection of crossing XV 250
Fredonia, Town of, v. C. M. <Sc St. P. R. Co., 1913
Protection of crossing XII 516
Friendship, Town of, v. C. & N. W. R. Co., 1913
Protection of crossing XI 733
Geneva, Town of, v. C. & N. W. R. Co., 1914
Protection of crossing XIV 481
Gillett, Town of, v. C. & N. W. R. Co., 1912
Installation of crossing IX 535
Grand Rapids, City of, v. G. B. Sz W, R. Co. et al., 1913
Protection of crossing XIII 395
Great N. R. Co., Town of Superior v., 1914
Construction of crossing XV 300
Green Bay, City of, v. C. M. <Sc St. P. i?. Co., 1913
Protection of crossings '. XII 383
Green Bay & W. R. Co. et al.. City of Grand Rapids v., 1913
Protection of crossings XIII 395
, Plover, Village of , v., 1913
Protection of crossing XI 727
Greenfield, Town of, v. C. & N. W. R. Co., 1912
Separation of grades IX 270
v. , 1913
Protection of crossing ....; XI 362
Hanafin et al., M. S. <k N. W. R. Co. v., 1910
Protection of crossing V 592
Cases Reported '_^ 581
Volume and Page
Hanchett Crossing, Town of Blooming Grove, Dane Co., In re,
1914
Protection of crossing XV 45
Happel et al. v. M. St. P. & S. S. M. R. Co., 1913
Protection of crossing XI 575
Hartland Crossing on C. M. S: St. P. R., In re Invest., 1913
Protection of crossing XI 432
Hewitt, Town of, v. C. St. P. M. <Sc 0. R. Co., 1912
Protection of crossing XI 79
Howard, Town of, v. M. St. P. & S. S. M. R. Co., 1913
Protection of crossing XII 254
V. , 1914
Protection of crossing XIV 433
Hubbard, Town of, v. C. M. & St. P. R. Co., 1910
Protection of crossing VI 128
V. , 1911
Protection of crossing VI 672
Illinois C. R. Co., Town of Fitchburg v., 1913
Protection of crossing XIII 403
, Madison, Town of, v., 1914
Protection of crossing XIII 608
, v., 1914
Protection of crossing XV 108
, Monroe, City of , v., 1914:
Protection of crossing.... XIV 118
, Montrose, Town of, v., 1914
Protection of crossing XIII 613
et al, Mt. Pleasant, Town of, v., 1913
Separation of grades XII 749
In re Appl. W. & N. R. Co. for Approval of Plans, 1912
Separation of grades IX 322
In re C. & N. W. R. Crossing in Beaver Dam, 1912
Protection of crossing IX 381
— , Crossing near Dodgeville, 1912
Protection of crossing IX 520
, Crossing near Milton Jet., 1912
Protection of crossing IX 379
In re C. M. & St. P. R. Crossing Accident near Bardwell, 1912
Protection of crossing VIII 471
, Crossing at Beaver Dam, 1912
Protection of crossing IX 523
, Crossing near Camp Douglas, 1912
Protection of crossing ;....IX 328
, Crossing near New Lisbon, 1912
Protection of crossing VIII 511
In re C. St. P. M. & 0. R. Crossing near Columbia Station,
1912
Protection of crossing VIII 516
582 Cases Reported
1 '
Volume and Page
IX. * RAILROAD CASES.
e. Crossings.
In re Crossing near Calvert of C. B. Sc Q. R. Co. et al., 1912
Protection pf crossing VIII 519
near Calvert of La Crosse So South Eastern R. Co. et al.^
1912
Protection of crossing VIII 519
near Schleisingerville, 1912
Protection of crossing IX 528
on C. St. P. M. & 0. R. Co. in Eau Claire, 1914
Separation of grades XV 24
on the Sheboygan Ry. & El. Co.y 1912
Protection of crossing IX 525
In re Division St. Crossing in Dodgeville, 1912
Protection of crossing IX 367
In re Fernhaber Crossing east of Schleisingerville, 1912
Separation of grades , XI 86
In re Grade Sep. on C. M. Sc St. P. R. in Milwaukee, 1915
Separation of grades XV 762
In re Hancheit Crossing, Town of Blooming Grove, Dane Co.,
1914
Protection of crossing ^ XV 45
In re Interlocking Plants, Rules Governing the Construction,
Maintenance & Operation of, 1913
Railroads and street railways XII 718
In re Invest. Aldrich St. Crossing, Milwaukee, 1912
Protection of crossing XI 147
Barron's Crossing (2 3^ miles southwest of Comstock) on
line of C. St. P. M. & 0. R. Co., 1914
Relocation of highway XIV 128
Chestnut St. Crossing, Eau Claire, 1913
Protection of crossing XIII 74
, 1914
Protection of crossing XIII 628
C. M. Sc St. P. R. Crossing near Camp Douglas, 1913
Elimination of crossing XII 524
Crossings in Cross Plains, 1914
Protection of crossing XIV 343
of C. St. P. M. & 0. R. Co., 1912
Protection of crossing VIII 733
Crossing near Calvert of C. B. <Sc Q. R. Co. et al., 1912
Protection of crossing XI 159
of C. <Sc N. W. R. Co., 1912
Separation of grades X 618
, Gale, Town of, 1914
Protection of crossing....' XIV 445
-, North of Racine, 1914
f
Separation of grades XIV 454
Cases Reported 583
Volume and Page
In re Invest., Crossing South of Mukwonago, 1913
Protection of crossing XII 32
of C. St. P. M. & 0. R. Co. Yolo, 1912
Protection of crossing X 528
, Division St. Crossing in Dodgeville, 1912
Protection of crossing XI 151
Drummond Road Crossing on lines of C. M. & St. P. R.
Co. et al. in Eau Claire, 1914
Protection of crossing XIV 104
on lines of C. St. P. M. & 0. R. Co. et al. in Eau
Claire, 1914
Protection of crossing XIV 104
Hartland Crossing on C. M. & St. P. R. Co., 1913
Protection of crossing XI 432
Highway near Cassville, 1913
Relocation of highway XIII 86
Mill St. Crossing, at La Crosse, 1913
Protection of crossing XIII 145
Vine St. Crossing on line of M. St. P. & S. S. M. R. Co.
in Marshfield, 1914
Protection of crossing XIV 110
In re Marinette Avenue Crossing in Marinette, 1914
Protection of crossing XV 200
In re Mill St. Crossing at La Crosse, 1912
Separation of grades VIII • 422
In re M. St. P. <Sc S. S. M. R. Crossing near Dresser Jet., 1912
Relocation of crossing IX 339
In re Mt. Morris Ave. Crossing at Wautoma, 1912
Protection of crossing IX 365
In re Richfield Crossing Accident on C. M. & St. P. R. Co., 1911
Protection of crossing VIII 287
In re Sheboygan Ry. Crossing Facilities, 1912
Separation of grades VIII 467
In re South Commercial St. Crossing at Neenah, 1912
Protection of crossing VIII 463
Kewaunee, G. B. Sz W. R. Co., Village oj Luxemburg v.,. 1909
Protection of crossing ...IV 244
La Crosse Sc S. E. R. Co. et al.. In re Crossing near Calvert,
1912
Protection of crossing VIII 519
La Prairie, Town of, v. C. Sc N. W. R. Co., 1913
Protection of crossing XIII 440
Ladysmith, City of, v. M. St. P. Sc S. S. M. R. Co., 1913
Protection of crossing XI 325; 554
Lake Superior T. Sc Tr. R. Co. et al.. City of Superior v., 1911
Separation of grades VI 674
Lebanon, Town of {Dodge Co.), M. S. Sc N. W. R. Co. v., 1911
Protection of crossing VI 424
584 Cases Reported
Volume and Page
IX. RAILROAD CASES.
e. Crossings.
Lincoln, Town of, et al. v. C. St. P. M. Sc 0. R. Co., 1912
Restoration of crossing X 531
Lisbon, Town of, M. S. & N. W. R. Co. v., 1910
Protection of crossing V 592
Lucas, Town of, v. C. St. P. M. & 0. R. Co., 1913
Protection of crossing XI 592; XII 703
Luxemburg, Village of, v. K. G. B. & W. R. Co., 1909
Protection of crossing IV 244
Lyndon, Town of, v. C. M. & St. P. R. Co., 1913
Protection of crossing XII 251
Madison, Town of, v. C. M. & St. P. R. Co., 1913
Separation of grades XII 395
V. I. C. R. Co., 1914
Protection of crossing XIII 608; XV 108
Maple Grove, Town of, v. M. St. P. <Sc S. S. M. R. Co., 1913
Separation of grades XII 686
Marathon City, Village of, v. C. & N. W. R. Co., 1911
Protection of crossing VIII 28
Marinette, City of, v. C. M. & St. P. R. Co., 1910
Protection of crossing V 455
Marinette Avenue Crossing in Marinette, In re, 1914
Protection of crossing XV 200
Marshfield, City of, v. C. & N. W. R. Co. et al, 1913
Protection of crossing XII 59
- Town of, V. M. St. P. & S. S. M. R. Co., 1914
Protection of crossings XV 207
Menomonee, Town of, v. C. & N. W. R. Co., 1914
Protection of crossing XIV 549
Mentor, Town of, v. C. St. P. M. & 0. R. Co., 1912
Protection of crossing X 434
Merrillan, Village of, v. C. St. P. M. Sc 0. R. Co., 1914
Protection of crossing XIV 315
Merton, Town of, v. C. & N. W. R. Co., 1913
Protection of crossing XI 606
Miller v. C. M. & St. P. R. Co., 1912
Protection of crossing X 499
Millston, Town of, v. C. St. P. M. & 0. R. Co., 1913
Protection of crossings ..'. XII 400
Mill Street Crossing at La Crosse, In re, 1912
Separation of grades •. VIII 422
, In re Invest., 1913
Protection of crossing XIII 145
Milwaukee, City of, v. C. <Sc N. W. R. Co., 1913
Protection of crossing XI 360
V. C. M. & St. P. R. Co. et al., 1912
Separation of grades IX 193; 515
r — T
Cases Reported 585
■ Volume and Page
Milwaukee, City of, v. C. M. & St. P. R. Co. ef al, 1913
Protection of crossing XI 344; 350; 353
V. , 1915
Separation of grades XV 762
Milwaukee E. R. & L. Co., The, et al.. City of Milwaukee v.,
1912
Separation of grades IX 193
, v., 1913
Protection of crossing XI 344; 350; 353
v., 1915
Separation of grades XV 762
Milwaukee L. H. <Sc Tr. Co., In re Invest. Crossings near Muk-
wonago on line o/, 1913
Protection of crossing XIII ^ 32
et al.. Town of New Berlin y., 1913
Protection of crossings XII 358
Milwaukee N. R. Co. et al.. Village of Cedar Grove v., 1913
Protection of crossings XII 712
Milwaukee, S. & N. W. R. Co., Town of Ashippun v., 1913
Protection of crossing XII 119
, Town Board of Beaver Dam y., 1912
Separation of grades IX 471
-, Town of Buffalo y., 1912
Protection of crossing IX 538
, Town of Lebanon {Dodge Co.), v., 1911
Protection of crossing VI 424
V. Town of Lisbon et al., 1910
Protection of crossing.... V 592
Milwaukee, Town of, v. C. <Sc N. W. R. Co., 1913
Protection of crossing XI 615
Mineral Point, Town of, v. C. M. & St. P. R. Co., 1912
Protection of crossing VIII 693
Minneapolis, St. P. Sc S. S. M. R. Co., Almena, Town of, v.,
1913
Protection of crowing XI 621
, Amherst, Town of, v., 1914
Protection of crossing XV 494
, Byron, Town of, v., 1912
Protection of crossing XI 95
, Cadott, Village of, v., 1915
Protection of crossing XV 596
, Crossing near Dresser Jd., In re, 1912
Relocation of crossing IX 339
, Farmington, Town of, v., 1913
Protection of crossing XI 624
, Happel et al. v., 1913
Protection of crossing XI 575
, Howard, Town of, v., 1913
Protection of crossing XII 254
586 Cases Reported
Volume and Page
IX. RAILROAD CASES.
e. Crossings.
Minneapolis, St. P. Sc S. S. M. R. Co., Howard, Township of,
p., 1914
Protection of crossing XIV 433
, In re Invest. Crossings near Mukwanago on line of, 1913
Protection of crossings XIII 32
, Lady smith. City of, v., 1913
Protection of crossing ..XI 325; 554
, , Maple Grove, Town of, v., 1913
Separation of grades XII 686
■ et al., Marshfield, City of, v., 1913
Protection of crossings XII 59
, v., 1914
Protection of crossing XV 207
et al., Oshkosh, City o/, y., 1911
Protection of crossing VIII 291
et al., Oshkosh, Town of, v., 1913
Protection of crossing XII 372
, Parkhill v., 1912
Protection of crossing, station facilities, train service XI 1 53
— , Polk, Town of, v., 1913
Protection of crossing XI 589
— , -Richfield, Town of, v., 1913
Protection of crossing XI 586
-, v., 1914
Protection of crossing XIII 623
— , St. Croix Falls, Town of, v., 1913
Protection of crossing XII ' 529
— , Somerset, Town o/, i^., 1913
Protection of crossing XI 730
— , Spencer, Village of, v., 1913
Protection of crossings XII 525
-, v., 1914
Protection of crossing , XIV 108
-, Thorp, Village of, v., 1913
Protection of crossing XI 609
— , Unity, Village of, v., 1913
Protection of crossings, train service XIII 430
— , Vine St. Crossing on line of, in Marshfield, In re Invest. ^
1914
Protection of crossing ;.XIV 110
— , Water ford. Town of, v., 1913
Protection of crossing XI 436
— , Wayne, Town of, v., 1912
Protection of crossing X 493
— , Wheaton, Town of, v., 1915
Protection of crossing XV 667
Cases Reported 587 .
Volume and Page
Minneapolis, St. P. cfc 5. S. M. R. Co., Wolf v., 1912
Protection of crossing X 615
Monroe, City of, v. C. M. & St. P. R. Co., 1914
Protection of crossing XIV 176
V. I. C. R. Co., 1914
Protection of crossing XIV 118
Montrose, Town of, v. I. C. R. Co., 1914
Protection of crossing XIII 613
Mt. Horeb, Village of, u. C. & N. W. R, Co., 1912
Protection of crossings X 623
V. , 1913
Separation of grades XII 495
Mt. Morris Avenue Crossing at Wautoma, In re, 1912
Protection of crossing IX 365
Mt. Pleasant, Town of, v. I. C. R. Co. et al., 1913
Separation of grades XII 749
Mukwanago, Crossings South of. In re Invest., 1913
Protection of crossings XIII 32
New Berlin, Town of, v. C. & N. W. R. Co. et al., 1913
Protection of crossings XII 358
New Holstein, Village of, v. C. M. & St. P. R. Co., 1909
Protection of crossing .....IV 364
New Richmond, City of, v. C. St. P. M. Sc 0. R. Co., 1915
Protection of crossing XV 752
Northern P. R. Co. et al.. City of Superior v., 1911
Separation of grades VI 674
Oakfield, Town of, v. C. <Sc N. W. R. Co., 1913
Protection of crossing XII 683
Oconomowoc, City of, v. C. M. Sc St. P. R. Co., 1913
Protection of crossing XII 84
Oshkosh, City of, v. C. M. Sc St. P. R. Co., 1911
Protection of crossing ,VIII 75
V. e/aZ., 1911
Protection of crossing. VIII 291
Oshkosh, Town of, v. M. St. P. Sc S. S. M. R. Co. et al., 1913
Protection of crdssing XII 372
Parkhill v. M. St. P. Sc S. S. M. R. Co., 1912
Protection of crossing, station facilities, train service XI 153
Pewaukee, Town of, u. C. M. Sc St. P. R. Co., 1913
Protection of crossing XI 658
Plover, Village of, v. G. B. Sc W. R. Co., 1913
Protection of crossing XI 727
Polk, Town of, V. M. St. P. Sc S. S. M. R. Co., 1913
Protection of crossing XI 589
Racine, City of, v. C Sc N. W. R. Co., 1912
Protection of crossing IX 354
v. , 1913
Separation of grades .....XI 740
588 Cases Reported
Volume and Page
IX. RAILROAD CASES.
e. Crossings.
Racine, City of, v. C. & N. W. R. Co., 1914
Separation of grades XIV 783
V. C. M. & St. P. R. Co., 1913
Protection of crossing .....XII 407
Remington, Town of, v. C. M. & St. P. R. Co., 1915
Construction of crossing XV 609
Rliine, Town of, v. C. M. & St. P. R. Co., 1910
Restoration and maintenance of highway '....V 184
Richfield, Town of, v. M. St. P. & S. S. M. R. Co., 1913
Protection of crossing XI 586
u. , 1914
Protection of crossing XIII 623
Richfield Crossing Accident on C. M. Sc St. P. R. Co., In re, 1911
Protection of crossing VIII 287
Richmond, Town of, v. W. Sc N. R. Co., 1914
Protection of crossing \ XIV 546; XV 309
Ripon, City of, v. C. M. & St. P. R. Co., 1913
Protection of crossing XII 100
Roddis Lbr. cfc Veneer Co., Rose v., 1907
Restoration and protection of crossing I 307
Rose V. Roddis Lbr. Sc Veneer Co., 1907
Restoration and protection of crossing I 307
Rueckeri et at. v. C. M. Sc St. P. R.Co., 1914
Protection of crossing XIII 749
St. Croix Falls, Town of, v. M. St. P. Sc S. S. M. R. Co.,
1913
Protection of crossing XII 529
St. Joseph, Town of, v. C. St. P. M. Sc 0. R. Co., 1913
Protection of crossing XI 737
Salem, Town of, v. C. Sc N. W. R. Co., 1912..
Protection of crossing... X 510
V. , 1913 «
Protection of crossing XI 322
Schleisingerville, Crossing near. In re, 1912
Protection of crossing IX 528
Sheboygan Ry. Crossing Facilities, In re, 1912
Separation of grades VIII 467
Sheboygan Ry. Sc El. Co., Crossing, In re, 1912
Protection of crossing IX 525
Somerset, Town of, v. M. St. P. Sc S. S. M. R. Co., 1913
Protection of crossing XI 730
South Commercial St. Crossing at Neenah, In re, 1912
Protection of crossing VIII 463
Sparta, City of, v. C. Sc N. W. R. Co., 1912
Protection of crossing XI 165
Cases Reported 589
Volume and Page
Spencer, Village of, v. M. St. P. & S. S. M. R. Co., 1913
Protection of crossings XII 525
V. , 1914
Protection of crossing XIV 108
Stanton, Town of, u. C. St. P. M. & 0. R. Co., 1913
Protection of crossing XI 595
Streeter ei al. v. C. St. P. M. & 0. R. Co., 1912
Restoration of crossing X 531
Sullivan, Town of, v. C. & N. W. R. Co., 1914
Protection of crossing ." XIV 320
Superior, City of, v. N. P. R. Co. et al., 1911
Separation of grades VI 674
Superior, Town of, v. G. N. R. Co., 1914
Construction of crossing XV 300
The Milwaukee E. R. & L. Co. et al.. City of Milwaukee, u. 1912
Separation of grades IX 193
, v., 1913
Protection of crossings '. XI 344
, v., 1915
Separation of grades XV 762
Thorp, Village of, v. M. St. P. & S. S. M. R. Co., 1913
Protection of crossing XI 609
Town Board of Beaver Dam v. M. S. &N. W. R. Co., 1912
Separation of grades IX 471
Unity, Village of, v. M. St. P. <Sc S. S. M. R. Co., 1913
Protection of crossing, train service XIII 430
Vine St. Crossing on line of M. St. P. Sc S. S. M. R. Co. in
Marshfield, In re Invest., 1914
Protection of crossing XIV 110
Von Rueden v. C. M. & St. P. R. Co., 1914
Protection of crossing XV 272
Waterford, Town of, v. M. St. P. & S. S. M. R. Co., 1913
Protection of crossing XI 436
Waunakee, Village of, v. C. <Sc N. W. R. Co., 1913
Protection of crossing XII 380
Wauwaiosa, Town of, v. C. & N. W. R. Co., mi
Protection of crossing VII 451; 453; 455; 621; 625
V. , 1911
Restoration of highway VII 709
v. ,1911
Separation of grades Vll 737; 760
P. , 1912
Restoration of highway IX 262
v.— — , 1912
Separation of grades IX 267
Wauzeka, Town of, v. C. M. & St. P. R. Co., 1912
Protection of crossing X 426
Wayne, Town of, u. M. St. P. <Sc S. S. M. R. Co., 1912
Protection of crossing X 493
590 Cases Reported
Volume and Page
IX. RAILROAD CASES.
e. Crossings.
West Allis, City of, v. C. & N. W. R. Co., 1911
Separation of grades VII 493
Westport, Town of, v. C. & N. W. R. Co., 1912
Alteration of crossing IX 218
Wheaton, Town of, v. M. St. P. & S. S. M. R. Co., 1915
Protection of crossing XV 667
Wien, Town of, v. C. & N. W. R. Co., 1914
Protection of crossing XIV 435
Wilton, Town of, v. C. & N. W. R. Co., 1913
Protection of crossing XI 598
— - V. , 1914
Protection of crossing XIV 334
Wisconsin & N. R. Co., Town of Richmond v., 1914
Protection of crossing XIV 546
-- — , In re Appl. for Approval of Plans, 1912
Separation of grades IX 322
, Town of Richmond v., 1914
Protection of crossing XV 309
Wolf V. M. St. P. & S. S. M. R. Co., 1912
Protection of crossing X 615
Yolo, Crossing of C. St. P. M. Sc 0. R. Co., In re Invest.,
1912
Protection of crossing X 528
f. Culverts.
Chicago Sc N. W. R. Co., Williams v., 1914 •
Reconstruction of culverts XV 366
Williams v. C. & N. W. R. Co., 1914
Reconstruction of culverts XV 366
g. Freight Packages.
Chicago Sc N. W. R. Co. et al. Southern Wis. Cheese Men's
Protective Assn. et al. v., 1909
• Regulations for labels on freight packages of cheese Ill 459
et al.. Wis. Butter Mfgrs. Sc Milk Prod. Prot. Assn. v.,
1910
Regulations for labels on freight packages of butter and
eggs IV 494
Chicago, M. Sc St. P. R. Co. et al.. Southern Wis. Cheese Men's
Prot. Assn. et al. v., 1909
Regulations for labels on freight packages of cheese Ill 459
, Wis. Butter Mfrs. Sc Milk Prod. Prot. Assn. v., 1910
Regulations for labels on freight packages of butter and
' eggs.... IV 494
Cases Reported 591
Volume and Page
Illinois C. R. Co. el al., Southern Wis. Cheese Men's Prot.
Assn. et al. v., 1909
Regulations for labels on freight packages of cheese Ill 459
, Wis. Butter Mfrs. & Milk Prod. Prot. Assn. v., 1910
Regulations for labels on freight packages of butter and
eggs IV 491
In re Minimum. Charges on Package Freight, 1907 •
Minimum charges , II 34
Minneapolis, St. P. Sc S. S. M. R. Co. et al.. Wis. Butter Mfrs.
cfc Milk Prod. Prot. Assn. v., 1910
Regulations for labels on freight packages of butter and
eggs IV 494
Southern Wis. Cheese Men^s Protec. Assn. et al. v. W. C. R. Co.
et al, 1909
Regulations for labels on freight packages of cheese Ill 459
Wholesale Cheese Dealers of the State of Wisconsin et al. v.
W. C. R. Co. et al, 1909
Regulations for labels on freight packages of cheese Ill 459
Wisconsin Butter Mfrs. Sc Milk Prod. Prot, Assn. v C. &
N. W. R. Co. et at., 1910
Regulations for labels on freight packages of butter and
eggs IV 494
Wisconsin C. R. Co. et al.. Southern Wis. Cheese Men's Prot.
Assn. et al. v., 1909
Regulations for labels on freight packages of cheese Ill 459
h. Headlights (Locomotive Headlights)
In re Invest. Locomotive Headlights, 1912
Locomotive headlights, merits of XI 137
Locomotive headlights. In re Invest., 1912
Locomotive headlights, merits of XI 13^7
*
i. Rates and Refunds.
A. H. Stange Co. v. C. M. Sc St. P. R. Co., 1913
Refund on shipment of logs XI 274; 725
A. S. Badger Co. v. M. St. P. Sc S. S. M. R. Co., 1913
Refund on shipment of lumber XI 434
Ahnapee Veneer Sc Seating Co. v. C. St. P. M. Sc 0. R. Co., 1909
Refund on shipments of logs IV 106
v. M. St. P. Sc S. S. M. R. Co. et al, 1909
Refund on shipment of lumber IV 109
V. , 1910
Refund on shipments of logs... V 643
■ v. , 1912
Refund on shipments of logs IX 482
Alart Sc McGuire v. G. B. & W. R. Co., 1908
Rate on cucumbers and onions, reasonableness of and
refund II 340
592 Cases Reported
Volume and Page
IX. RAILROAD CASES.
i. Rates and Refunds.
Allen V. C. M. & St. P. R. Co., 1913
Rates on Christmas trees, reasonableness of and refund XII 95
Allen Lbr. Co. v. C. M. & St. P. R. Co., 1910
Demiftrage charges and terminal facilities VI 14
Allen Seed Co. u. C. & N. W. R. Co. et at., 1915
Rates on peas and beans, reasonableness of and refund XV 641
American Cigar Co. v. G. B. & W. R. Co. et al., 1908
Joint rates on tobacco, reasonableness of II 807
Arpin Hardwood Lbr. Co. v. C. St. P. M. & 0. R. Co., 1910
Rates on logs, reasonableness of V 441
Arries & Peckhaw et al. v. C. Sc N. W. R: Co., 1911
Transit privileges, restoration of VII 131
Bacon Co. et al.. v. C. & N. W. R. Co., 1908
Refund on shipment of grain : Ill 185; 370
Bacon {E. P.) & Co. v. M. St. P. & S. S. M. R. Co., 1912
Refund on shipment of grain IX 62; 468
Badger Basket & Veneer Co. v. M. St. P. & S. S. M. R. Co.,
1913
Refund on shipment of logs XI 492
Badger Co. u. M. St. P. &S. S. M. R. Co. et al., 1910
Refund on shipment of lumber. V 729
v. ,1911
Refund on shipment of lumber VIII 125
u. , 1913
Refund on shipment cf lumber XI 434
Bailey Mfg. Co. v. C. & N. W. R. Co. et al., 1913
Refund on shipment of heating apparatus XII 699
Baldwin El. Lt. <Sc Fuel Co. et al. v. C. St. P. M. <Sc 0. R. Co.,
1907
Rates on coal, reasonableness of I , 767
Barker <Sc Stewart Lbr. Co. v. C. & N. W. R. Co., 1912
Refund on shipment of tanbark XI 141
et al. V. , 1914
Rates on logs, reasonableness of XIV 628
V. C. M. & St. P. R. Co., 1913
Refund on shipment of tanbark XI 537
et al. V. , 1915
Rates on saw logs and bolts, resonableness of and re-
fund ^ XV 645
Barkhausen Coal & Dock Co. et al. v. G. B. Sc W. R. Co., 1914
Switching charges, absorption of XIV 172
Barnes v. C. M. & St. P. R. Co. et al., 1910
Refund on shipment of wood IV 478
Barney v. G. B. & W. R. Co. et at., 1910
Refund on shipment of brick IV 775
Cases Reported 593
Volume and Page
Bartles-Maguire Oil Co. ef al. v. C. M. & St. P. R. Co. et ai,
1911
Less than carload rates on petroleum products VI 326
Bqrtlett & Son Co. v. C. <Sc AT. W. R. Co., 1908
Refund on shipment of grain Ill 185
et at.. V. , 1909
Refund on shipment of grain Ill 370; 451
Bayfield Transfer Ry. Co., Wachsmuth Lbr. Co. v., 1914
Rates on logs, reasonableness of and minimum weight XIV 253; 601
Beaver Dam Lbr. Co. v. C. Si. P. M. & 0. R. Co., 1908
Rates on logs, reasonableness of and refund II 700
V. . 1910
Refund on shipments of logs V 645
Beaver Dam Malleable Iron Works v. C. M. Sc St.. P. R. Co.,
1908
Rates on castings, reasonableness of and refund II # 703
Bell & Co. V. G. B. & W. R. Co. et at., 1910
Refund on shipments of grain V 430
Benesch Brothers v. C. cfc N. W. R. Co., 1909
Refund on shipment of scrap iron Ill 383
Berger-Criltenden Co. v. C. & N. W. R. Co., 1908
Refund on shipment of grain Ill 185
u. , 1909
Refund on shipment of grain Ill 370
Big Falls R. Co. et al., Konopatzke v., 1912
Establishment of joint rates VIII 556
Big Four Canning Co. v. C. St. P. M. & 0. R. Co. et at., 1914
Rates on box shooks, reasonableness of and refund XIV 84
Blackwell & Kaiser v.. C. M. & St. P. R. Co. et al., 1913
Refund on shipment of lumber XI 267
Block-Pollak Iron Co. v. C. M. & St. P. R. Co., 1911
Refund on shipment of scrap iron VI 205; 548
Blodgett Milling Co. v. C. Sc N. W. R. Co., 1912
Refund on shipment of grain X 377
V. , 1914
Absorption of switching charges on grain and refund on
shipments XIII 782
V. , 1914
Refund on shipment of buckwheat XIV 771
Borden Co. v. L. C. Sc S. E. R. Co. et al., 1913
Establishment of concentration rates and refund on ship-
ment of tobacco XI 439
Bowar et al. v. C & S. C.^R. Co. et al., 1911
Establishment of joint rates VI 693
Brandel v. C. & N. W. R. Co., 1910
Refund on shipment of motor boat , IV 498
Brittingham Sc Young Co. v. C. M. Sc St. P. R. Co. et al., 1911
Refund on shipment of lumber VI 528
594 Cases Reported
Volume and Page
IX. RAILROAD CASES.
i. Rates and Refunds.
Brittingham & Young Co. v. C. M. & St. P. R. Co. et al., 1911
Refund on shipment of lumber and reduction of rates VIII 131
V. M. St. P. & S. S. M. R. Co. et al, 1910
Refund on shipments of lumber , IV 772
Britton Cooperage Co. v. C. M. & St. P. R. Co., 1909
Refund on shipments of logs Ill 386; 388
Brooks Sc Ross Lbr. Co. et ai. v. C. & N. W. R. Co., 1914
Rates on logs, reasonableness of XIV 628
Broughton v. C. & N. W. R. Co., 1910
Refund on shipment of grain V 432
Brown Bros. Lbr. Co. v. M. St. P. & S. S. M. R. Co. et al, 1910
Refund on shipments of lumber and reduction of joint
rates V, 647; 655; 663
V. , 1914
Rates on car stakes, reasonableness of and refund XIV 204
V. , 1915
Rates on logs, reasonableness of and refund , XV 569
Brown Land & Lbr. Co. v. M. St. P.. <Sc S. S. M. R. Co. et al, .
1911
Refund on shipment of lumber VII 581
Browndeer Lbr. & Fuel Co, v. G. B. <Sc W. R. Co., 1914
Rates on slab wood, reasonableness of and refund XIV 138
Buell V. C. & N. W. R. Co., 1907
Passenger rates, reasonableness of I 508
V. C. M. Sc St. P. R. Co., 1907
Passenger rates, reasonableness of I 324
BuswellLbr. & Mfg. Co. v. C. M. & St P. R. Co., 1911
Refund on shipment of logs VI 217
Callaway Fuel Co. v. C. Sc N. W. R. Co. et al, 1914
Rates on coke, reasonableness of and refund XIII 694
Campbell v. C. St. P. M. Sc 0. R. Co., 1906
Rates on pine trimmings, reasonableness of I 197
Cantwell Paper Co. v. C. Sc N. W. R. Co., 1910
Refund on shipment of paper V 293
Capital Fence Co. v. C. Sc N. W. R. Co. et al, 1913
Rates on wire fencing, barb wire, staples and nails, rea-
sonableness of and refund XII 756
Carlson v. C. St. P. M. Sc 0. R. Co., 1908
Rates on cordwood, reasonableness of II 705
Car Service and Demurrage Rules, In re, 1912
Demurrage rules VIII 579
Cazenovia Sc Sauk C. R. Co. v. C. Sc N. W. R. Co., 1914
4
Division of joint rates XIII 744
■ et al. Pounder v., 1913
Refund on shipments of lumber XII 219
Cases Reported 595
Volume and Page
Cazenovia & Sauk C.R. Co. v. Schmitt et al. v., 1911
Establishment of joint rates VI 693
Central Wis. Traffic Bur. v. C. M. Sc St. P. R. Co., 1914
Rates on lumber, reasonableness of and refund XV 521
Chamber of Commerce of Milw. v. C. B. <Sc Q. R. Co. et at., 1909
Joint rates on grain IV 80
Chapter 362, Laws of 1905, In re Consir., 1905
Reduced rates to homeseekers I 1
Chicago & N. W. R. Co. et at., American Cigar Co. v., 1908
Joint rates on tobacco, reasonableness of II 807
, Arries & Peckham et al. v., 1911
Transit privileges, restoration of VII 131
— — , Bacon Co. v., 1908
Refund on shipment of grain Ill 185
, v., 1909
Refund on shipment of grain Ill 370
et al., Bailey Mfg. Co. v., 1913
Refund on shipment of heating apparatus XII 699
, Barker & Stewart Lbr. Co. v., 1912
Refund on shipment of tanbark XI 141
, v., 1914
Rates on logs, reasonableness of '. XIV 628
, Bartles-Maguire Oil Co. et al. v., 1911
. Less than carload rates on petroleum products VI 326
, Bartlett & Son Co. v., 1908
Refund on shipment of grain Ill 185
, 17., 1909
Refund on shipment of grain Ill 370; 451
, Benesch Bros, v., 1909
Refund on shipment of scrap iron Ill 383
, Berger-Crittenden Co. v., 1908 ^
Refund on shipment of grain Ill 185
, v., 1909
Refund on shipment of grain Ill 370
et al.. Big Four Canning Co. v., 1914
Rates on box shooks, reasonableness of and refund .....XIV 84
,Blodgett Milling Co. v., 1912
Refund on shipment of grain X 377
, v., 1914
Absorption of switching charges on grain, and refund XIII 783
, v., 1914
Refund on shipment of buckwheat XIV 771
et al., Bowar et al. v., 1911
Establishment of joint rates VI 693
, Brandel v., 1910
Refund on shipment of motor boat IV 498
et al., Brittingham Sc Young Co. v., 1911
Refund on shipment of lumber VI 528
V
596 Cases Reported
Volume and Page
IX. RAILROAD CASES.
i. Rates and Refunds.
Chicago & N. W. R. Co., Broughton v., 1910
Refund on shipment of grain V 432
et al.j Brown Bros. Lbr. Co. v., 1910
Refund of shipments of lumber and reduction of joint
rates V 647
, Buell v., 1907
Passenger rates, reasonableness of I 508
et al., Callaway Fuel Co. v., 1914
Rates on coke, reasonableness of and refund XIII 694
, Cantwell Paper Co, v., 1910
Refund on shipment of paper V 293
et al., Qapital Fence Co. v., 1913
Rates on wire fencing, barb wire, staples and nails,
reasonableness of and refund XII 75^
, Cazenouia Sc Sauk City R. Co. v., 1914
Division of joint rates XIII 744
et al., Chippewa Sugar Co. et al. v., 1906
Rates on sugar beets and beet pulp, reasonableness of I 258
, Connor Land cfc Lbr. Co. v., 1911
Refund on shipment of lumber VII 774
, v., 1912
Refund on shipment of lumber VIII 697
et al., — v., 1913
Joint rates and service XII 761
, Coughlin v., 1908
Refund on shipment of grain Ill 185
et al., Crary v., 1909
Minimum carload weights on canned goods Ill 432
, Deeves Lbr. Co. v., 1912
Refund on teaming expenses on carload of lumber, peti-
tion for, dismissed VIII 507
, Druecker v., 1909 \
Refund on shipments of wood Ill 594
, Ellis <Sc Sons v., 1909
Refund on shipments of butter and eggs Ill 337
, Elmore-Benjamin Coal Co. i>., 1912
Refund on shipment of coal IX 396
et al., Engesether y., 1912
Refund on shipment of vegetables VIII 504
r, Fagg & Taylor et al. v., 1909
Refund on shipment of grain Ill 370
, Fergot v., 1909
Refund on shipment of wood bolts IV 248
, Franke Grain Co. v., 1908
Refund on shipment of grain .'f. Ill 182
Cases Reported 597
Volume and Page
Chicago <Sc N. W. R. Co., Franke Grain Co. v., 1909
Refund on shipment of grain Ill 370
et al., Gablowsky et al. v., 1912
Refund on shipment of logs and reduction of joint rates.. ..VIII 544
, Goodwillie Bros, v., 1910
Refund on shipments of lumber IV 461
, Gund Brewing Co. v., 1909
Refund on shipments of beer......... IV 190
— ef al., Hagen et al. v., 1912
Refund on shipment of logs and reduction of joint rates.... VI 1 1 544
— Hale-Mylrea Co. v., 1912
Refund on shipment of piling X 639
-, v., 1913
Refund on shipments of coal XII 709
— et al., Hanowitz v., 1908
Rates on logs and bolts, reasonableness of II 333
— et al., H eddies Lbr. Co. y., 1910
Joint rates on lumber V 714
— , Heineman Lbr. Co. v., 1909
Refund on shipments of lumber IV 356
— , Higgins Spring dc Axle Co. v., 1912
Refund on shipment of springs and axles IX 180
— et al., Hopwood v., 1913
Refund on shipment of brick XII 217
— et al., Houser v., 1907
Rates on live stock, reasonableness of I 778
— , Hoyt & Bergen v., 1912
Refund on shipment of live stock VIII 532
-, Jefferson Brick & Tile Co. v., 1912
Refund on shipments of lumber waste VIII 553
— et al., John H. Allen Seed Co. v., 1915
Rates on peas and beans, reasonableness of and refund XV 641
— et al., John Schroeder Lbr. Co. v., 1914
Rates on lumber, reasonableness of and refund XIV 823
— , Jones Lbr. Co. v., 1907
Group rates on lumber, reasonableness of I 520
— , Kamm & Co. v., 1909
Refund on shipment of grain Ill 370
— , Karger Bros, v., 1909
Refund on shipment of grain Ill 185
— et al., Kieckhefer Box Co. v., 1912
Rates on boxes, reasonableness of XI 101
— et al., Kinney et al. v., 1906
Rates on grain, reasonableness of I 124
— et al., Konopatzke v., 1912
Establishment of joint rates VIII 556
— et al., Konrad Schreier Co. v., 1910
Joint rates on barley V 668
598 Cases Reported
Volume and Page
IX. RAILROAD CASES.
i. Rates and Refunds.
Chicago & N. W. R. Co. et al., Kraft Sz Bros. Co. et al, v., 1914
Rates on cheese, reasonableness of XV 217
, Krull Commission Co. u.^ 1912
Refund of demurrage charges on shipment of hay IX 6d
, Lauer <Sc Co. v., 1908
Refund on shipment of grain Ill 185
• , v., 1909
Refund on shipment of grain Ill 370
, Listman Mill Co. v., 1911
Refund on shipment of flour .VI 207
, Locke v.y 1913
Rates on scrap iron, reasonableness of XIII 366
, Lyman-Smith Grain Co. v., 1908
Refund on shipment of grain Ill 185
, Mace Lime Co. v., 1909
Refund on shipments of wood Ill 590
, v.y 1913
Rates on lime, reasonableness of XIII 38
-, Mason-Donaldson Lbr. Co. p., 1915
Rates on lumber, reasonableness of and refund XV 575
, Mason & Martin v.j 1912
Refund on shipment of live stock IX 74
, Maxson Lbr. Co. v., 1913
Refund on shipment of wood XI 269
et al.y Mayer v.y 1909
Refund on scrap iron IV 26$
— , 1;., 1911 '
Refund on shipment of scrap iron and estabUshment of
joint rate VIII 328
, McEachron Co. v.y 1911
Refund on shipments of potatoes VI 667
et al.y Mears-Slayton Lbr. Co. v., 1911
Refund on shipment of lumber and estabUshment of
joint rate VIII 247
et al.y Michel Brewing Co. v.y 1910
Refund on shipment of beer VI 18
, Miller v.y 1914
Rates on shipment of fuel wood and fence posts, reason-
ableness of and refund XIV 707
, Milwaukee Sandstone Co. v.y 1914
Refund on shipments of stone paving blocks XIII 671
, Milwaukee-Waukesha Brewing Co. v.y 1910
Rates on beer, reasonableness of V 546
• , v.y 1911
Refund on shipment of beer VI 518
Cases Reported 599
Volume and Page
Chicago & N. W. R. Co., Milwaukee-Western Fuel Co. v., 1909
Refund on shipments of coal Ill 517
et al., Milwaukee Western Mali Co. v., 1910
Refund from demurrage charges V • 437
et al, Minch v., 1907
Joint rates on grain, establishment of I 599
et al.. Mineral Pt. Zinc Co. v., 1911
Establishment of joint rates on zinc ore VII 583
et al., Minneapolis Lbr. Co. v., 1909
Refund on shipment of logs IV 206
, Mohr-Holstein Commission Co. v., 1908
Refund on shipment of grain .^ : Ill 185
et al., National Distilling Co. v., 1913
Rates on Hquor, reasonableness of 'XI 424
, National Refining Co. et al. v., 1911
Less than carload rates on petroleum products VI ' 326
, New Richmond Roller Mills Co..v., 1913
Refund on shipment of grain XI 272
, Nor. Hemlock & Haidw'd Mfrs. Assn. v., 1913
Rates on logs, reasonableness of XII 241
— , Northern Milling Co. v., 1914
Refund on shipments of hay XIII 468
— , Oshkosh Fuel Co. v., 1911
Refund on shipments of slabs, slab wood and cordwood VI 222
-, v.y 1913
Refund on shipment of wood. XI 400
-, v., 1914
Rates on dry slab wood and edging, reasonableness of
and refund XIII 775
— , Oshkosh Logging Tool Co. v., 1907
Rates on logs, reasonableness of .'. II 116
— , Owen 8z Bros. Co. v., 1908
Refund on shipment of grain Ill 185
— , v., 1909
Refund on shipment of grain Ill 370; 391
- v., 1914
Rates on grain, reasonableness of and refund XIV' 79
— , Pabst Brewing Co. v., 1909
Refund on shipments of beer IV 173
v., 1910
Refund on shipments of empty beer packages IV 403
-, v., 1910
Refund on shipments of beer IV 766
— et al., et al. v., 1913
Rates on beer, reasonableness of XIII 42
-, Paff v., 1912
Refund on shipment of lime IX 160
—,, Paine Lbr. Co. Ltd. v., 1914
Demurrage charges on shipments of logs XIII 633
600 Cases Reported
Volume and Page
IX. RAILROAD CASES.
i. Rates and Refunds.
Chicago & N. W. R. Co., Pape v., 1912
Refund on shipment of coke VIII 566
et a!., Parfrey v., 1910
Refund on shipment of empty cheese boxes and estab-
Ushment of joint rates on same IV 450; V 551
et al. The A. C. Parfrey Mfg. Co. v., 1912
Refund on shipment of cheese boxes IX 517
et al., Paxton Sz Lightbody Co. v., 1910
Joint and local rates, discrimination in car service V 531
, Peshtigo Lbr. Co. v., 1914
Rates on logs, reasonableness of and refund .....XIV 624
, Pietsch Iron Works v., 1911
Refund on shipment of structural iron VI 540
et al., Plymouth Cheese Co. et al. v., 1914
Rates on cheese, reasonableness of XV 217
et al., Pounder v., 1913
Refund on shipments of lumber XII 219
, Price v., 1907
Rates on lumber, reasonableness of I . 611
et al.. Pulp & Paper Mfrs. of Wis. v., 1908
Rates on pulp wood, reasonal^leness of II 168
et al.. Pulp & Paper Mfrs. Traffic Assn. v., 1913
Rates on wood, reasonableness of .XI 365
, i;., 1914
Joint rates on pulp wood....^ ." XIII 735
, v., 1914
Rates on wood, reasonableness of XV 66
, Pulp Wood Co. v., 1912
Refund on shipment of logs and wood XI 144
et al.. Pulp Wood Co. of Appleton v., 1910
Refund on shipments of pulp wood VI 175
, Rankin Sc Co. v., 1909
Refund on shipment of grain Ill 370
• , Richards v., 1909
Minimum carload weights on sheep Ill 507
et al., Ringle et al. v., 1911
Reduction of rates on tile and brick '. ! VII 170
• , y., 1911
Joint rates on brick and tile VII 598
, Ripon Veneer & Box Wks. i;., 1912
Refund on shipment of logs IX 484
, Rowland & Son v., 1912
Refund on shipment of brick IX 163
, Runkel, Dadmun & Sullivan v., 1908
Refund on shipment of grain Ill 185
Cases Reported 601
Volume and Page
Chicago & N. W. R. Co., et a!., Schmitt v., 1911
Establishment of joint rates VI 693
et at., Sette Sc Co, v., 1909
Refund on shipment of excelsior •. Ill 595
■ , v., 1914
Rates on excelsior, reasonableness of and refund XIV 225
— et at., Semrad Bros. & Puscti Brwg. Co. v., 1912 '
Establishment of joint rates on beer IX 76
- v., 1913
Refund on shipments of beer and empty beer carriers XII 236
— , Shawano Lbr. Co. v., 1908
Rates on lumber, reasonableness of II 775
—, Sheboygan Pad. Co. v., 1912
Rates on excelsior, reasonableness of X 641
— et at.. Southern Wis. Cheesemen's Prot. Assn. v., 1906
Rates on cheese, reasonableness of ^ I 143
— , South MitwaukeeFuet Sz Supply Co. v., 1911
Refund on shipments of coal, coke, etc VII 1
- v., 1912
Refund on shipments of coal and coke VIII 473
-, So. Wis. Sand & Gravet Co. et at. v., 1912
Switching rates on gravel and sand X 436
— , Standard Lime cfc Stone Co. v., 1911
Refund on shipments of lime VII 149
-, v., 1912
Minimum carload weights and refund on shipments IX 228
— , Stevens v., 1914
Rates on rye, reasonableness of and refund XV 524
— et al.y Stevens Lbr. Co. v., 1913
Rates on lumber, discrimination in switching rates XI 476
— , Stotie, Danget cfc Foss Co. v., 1909
Refund on shipments of eggs Ill 335
-, Stowett Mfg. & Fdry. Co. v., 1911
Refund on shipments of hardware VIII 316
— et at., St reveler et at. v., 1912
Establishment of joint rates X 409
-. :;.. 1913
Division of joint rates XII 170
— et at., Tinkham v., 1909 ' ^
Refund on shipment of posts IV 329
— , Torrey Cedar Co. y., 1912
Refund on shipment of poles and posts IX 185
— , v., 1912
Concentration rates on poles and posts X 461
— , Two Rivers Woodenware Co. v., 1909
Refund on shipments of logs and bolts IV 355
— et at., Vatvotine Oit Co. v., 1908
Transit privileges II 232
602 Cases Reported
Volume and Page
IX. RATES AND REFUNDS.
i. Rates and Refunds.
Chicago & N. W. R. Co., Valvoline Oil Co. v., 1909
Rehearing on order granting transit privileges Ill 364
et ah, Waukesha Lime & Stone Co. v., 1912
Reduction of rates on crushed stone, gravel and lime IX 87
, v., 1912
Reduction of rates on crushed stone, gravel and sand IX 347
- v., 1913
Rates on lime, reasonableness of XI 419
- v., 1913
Refund on shipments of crushed stone and gravel XIII 368
- v., 1914
Switching and distance rates on wood, reasonableness of... XI 1 1 650
-, v., 1914
Rates on ground limestone, reasonableness of and re-
fund XIV 579
- et at., Waukesha Lime & Stone Co., y., 1914 '
Rates on crushed stone and gravel, reasonableness of,
and refusal to make refund ordered by Commission XV 479
— , Wausau Advancement Assn. v.y 1913
Rates on shipments of hay, reasonableness of and refund.. XII 433
1;.,1914
Rates on lumber and wooden boxes, reasonableness of
and refund, jurisdiction of Commission XIII 772
— , Wausau Box SzLbr. Co. v., 1909
Rates on lumber, reasonableness of IV 256
— v., 1909
Refund on shipments of lumber IV 335
-, — v., 1910
Refund on shipments of lumber IV 459
— v., 1914
Rates on wooden boxes, reasonableness of and refund XIII 698
— Webb Produce Co. v., 1908
Concentration rates on butter and eggs Ill 32
— v., 1909
Refund on shipments of eggs Ill - 338
— et at., Webster Mfg. Co. v., 1914
Joint rates on logs XIV 703
— , Western Elevator Co. i;., 1913
Refund from charge exacted for switching cars of coal XII 184
— , White Rock Quarry Co. v., 1914
Refund on shipments of granite blocks XIII 669
— et at., Whittet v., 1909
Refund on shipments of lumber IV 195
— et at., Wisconsin Box Co. et at. v., 1909
Concentration rates on rough lumber Ill 605
Cases Reported 603
Volume and Page
Chicago Sc N. W. R. Co., Wisconsin Box Co. et al. v., 1909
Rates on lumber, reasonableness of IV 256
, v., 1909
Refund on shipments of lumber IV 343
, v., 1910
Refund on shipments of lumber IV 405
et al., Wisconsin Clay Mfrs. Assn. v., 1914
Establishment of joint rates on tile and on brick and tile.. XIII 756
, Wis. Lakes Ice & Cartage Co., v., 1912
Reduction of rates and refund on shipments of ice IX 101
, - — v., 1912
Reduction of rates and refund on shipment of ice XI 62; 171
et al.. Wis. Pulp Sc Paper Mfrs. v., 1911
Group rates on coal VI 436
et al.. Wis. Retail Lbr. Dealers' Assn. v., 1909
Establishment of joint rates Ill 471; 589
et al.. Wis. River Paper Sc Pulp Co. v., 1911
Refund on shipments of wood pulp VIII 64
et al., Wright Lbr. Co. v., 1909
Refund on shipments of tanbark IV 175
, Yawkey-Bissel Lbr. Co. v., 1910
Refund on shipments of lumber VI 21
, v., 1911
Refund on shipments of lumber VI 209
Chicago, B. Sc Q. R. Co. et al., Bartles-Maguire Oil Co. et al.
v., 1911
Less than carload rates on petroleum products VI 326
et al.. Chamber of Commerce of Milw. v., 1909
Joint rates on grain IV 80
et al., Crary v., 1909
Minimum carload weights on canned goods Ill 432
et al., Eckhart v., 1910
Refund on shipments of grain IV 781
et al., NaVl Refining Co. et al. v., 1911
Less than carload rates on petroleum products VI 326
et al. Pulp Sc Paper Mfrs. Traffic Assn. v., 1914
Joint rates on pulp wood XIII 735
, v., 1914
Rates on wood, reasonableness of XV 66
et al., Ringle et al. v., 1911
Reduction of rates on tile and brick VII IJO
, i;., 1911
Joint rates on brick and tile VII 598
et al., Wisconsin Clay Mfrs. Assn. v.,. 1914
Estabhshment of joint rates on tile and on brick and
tUe XIII 756
Chicago, M. Sc St. P. R. Co. et a., Ahnapee Veneer Sc Seating
Co. v., 1909
Refund on shipment of lumber IV 109
604 Cases Reported
Volume and Page
IX. RAILROAD CASES.
i. Rates and Refunds.
Chicago, M. <Sc St. P. R. Co., A. H. Stange Co. v., 1913
Refund on shipment of logs. XI 274; 725
, Allen v., 1913
Raj:es on Christmas trees, reasonableness of and refund.. ..XII 95
. Allen Lbr. Co. v., 1910
Demurrage charges and terminal facilities VI 14
— et al., American Cigar Co. p., 1908
Joint rates on tobacco, reasonableness of II 807
— et al.. Badger Co. v., 1911
Refund on shipment of lumber VIII 125
— , Barker-Stewart Lbr. Co. v., 1913
Refund on shipment of tanbark XI 537
— et al. v., 1915
Rates on saw logs and bolts, reasonableness of and re-
fund XV 645
— et al., Barnes v., 1910
Refund on shipment of wood IV 478
— et al., Bartles-Maguire Oil Co. et al. v., 1911
Less than carload rates on petroleum products VI 326
— , Beaver Dam Malleable Iron Wks. v., 1908
Rates on castings, reasonableness of and refund II 703
— et al.y Blackwell & Kaiser p., 1913
Refund on shipment of lumber XI 267
— Block-Pollak Iron Co. i7.,.1911
Refund on shipment of scrap iron VI 205; 548
— et al.y Borden Co. v., 1913
Establishment of concentration rates and refund on
shipment of tobacco • XI 439
— et a/., Brittingham Sc Young Co. v., 1911
Refund on shipment of lumber VI 528
-, 17., 1911
Refund on shipment of lumber VIII 131
— , Britton Cooperage Co. v., 1909
Refund on shipments of logs ...Ill 386; 388
— et al.f Brown Bros. Lbr. Co. v., 1910
Refund on shipments of lumber and reduction of joint
rates V 655
— Buell p„ 1907
Passenger rates, reasonableness of I 324
— , Buswell Lbr. Sc Mfg. Co. p,, 1911
Refund on shipment of logs VI 217
- Central Wis. Traffic Bur. p., 1914
Rates on lumber, reasonableness of and refund XV 521
— , Chamber of Commerce of Milw. v., 1909
Joint rates on grain IV 80
Cases Reported 605
Volume and Page
Chicago, M. & St. P. R. Co. et al., Chippewa Sugar Co. et al.
v., 1906
Rates on sugar beets and beet pulp, reasonableness of I 258
, Cochrane Co. v.^ 1908
Concentration rates on butter and eggs ; Ill 1
, Columbus Canning Co. v., 1913
Rates on canned goods, reasonableness of switching rates.XII 137
— et al.y Crary v., 1909
Minimum carload weights on canned goods Ill 432
— et al.y Curtis & Yale Co. p., 1911
Establishment of joint rates on sash and doors VII 41
— et a/., Eau Claire Concrete Co. v., 1912
Rates on concrete blocks, reasonableness of IX 82
-etal., Eckhartv., 1910
Refund on shipments of grain IV 781
— , Ellis Lbr. Co. y., 1914
Rates on hog fuel, reasonableness of and refund XV 527
— et al.f Engesether v., 1912
Refund on shipment of vegetables ; VIII 504
— , Fargo v., 1914
Rates on stone, reasonableness of and refund XV 162
— et a/.. Flambeau Paper Co. v., 1913
Reduction of joint rate and refund on shipment of pulp.. XI 699
-, Flavian v., 1909
Refund on shipments of logs Ill 385
— , Francey Coal, Stone Sc Supply Co. v., 1912
Refund on shipment of coal VIII 477
— , G. W. Jones Lbr. Co., y., 1911
Refund of demurrage charges VII 388
— , Goodivillie Bros, v., 1910
Refund on shipments of lumber IV 463
— et al.f Green Bay Box d: Lbr. Co. v., 1909
Refund on shipments of logs Ill 362
— , Greengo v., 1914
Rates on skimmed milk, reasonableness of XV 532
— , Gregory Bros, v., 1908
Rates on coal, reasonableness of II ' 791
— , Greiling Bros. Co. y., 1914
Demurrage charges on shipments of stone XIV 449
— , Gund Brewing Co. v., 1914
Rates on bottles, reasonableness of and refund XV 82
— et al., H eddies Lbr. Co. y., 1910
Joint rates on lumber V 714
— , Heineman Lbr. Co. v., 1912
Refund on shipment of logs IX 281
- Heinz Co. v., 1909 .
Rates on cucumbers in brine IV 144
— , Higgins Spring cfc Axle Co. v., 1909
Refund on shipment of vehicle springs IV 384
606 Cases Reported
Volume and Page
IX. RAILROAD CASES.
i. Rates and Refunds.
Chicago, M. <Sc St. P. R. Co., Higgins Spring & Axle Co. v.,
1911
Refund on shipment of vehicle springs VIII 36; 283
et al. Hopwood y., 1913
Refund on shipment of brick XII 217
, Hottelet Co. v., 1910
Rates on dried brewers' grains .....V 705
, Howey v., 1909
Refund on shipment of ice boat Ill 504
, Ideal Lbr. 8z Coal Co. v., 1909
Refund on shipment of coke IV . 171
, In re Appl., 1911
Demurrage charges VIII 101; 278
International Harvester Corporation v., 1914
Refund on shipments of slag ..XIII 640
■; v., 1914
Rates on sand, reasonableness of and refund XV 164
, Joannes Bros, v., 1909
Refund on shipment of groceries Ill 422
et al., John H. Allen Seed Co. v., 1915
Rates on peas and beans, reasonableness of and refund XV 641
et al., John Schroeder Lbr. Co. y., 1914
Rates on lumber, reasonableness of and refund .....XIV 823
, Johns-Mansville Co. v., 1909
Refund on shipments of flux stone IV 114
, Keogh Excelsior Mfg. Co. et al. v., 1908
Rates o;n excelsior bolts, reasonableness of II 717
et al., Kieckhefer Box Co. v., 1912
Rates on boxes, reduction of XI 101
, v., 1915
Switching rates, reasonableness of XV 564
, Kiel Wooden Ware Co. v., 1909
Refund on shipments of logs Ill 597
, v., 1912
Refund on shipment of cheese boxes IX 278
• et al., Konrad Schreier Co. v., 1910
Joint rates on barley V 668
et al., Kraft, Radtke, & Quilling Co. v., 1913
Refund on shipment of twine XIII 393
— ■ — , Krouskop v., 1910
Refund on shipment of rye.... VI 178
, v., 1910
Refund on shipment of lumber and reduction of rates.... VI 184
, u., 1911
Refund on shipment of lumber ;..VIII 32
et al., Leonard Seed Co. v. 1914
Rates on seed peas, reasonableness of and refund XIV 97
Cases Reported 607
Volume and Page
Chicago, M. <Sc St. P. R. Co., Lieberman v., 1909
Commutation rates Ill 330
, Lindsay Bros, v., 1908
Refund on shipment of agricultural implements Ill 114
, Manson & Weinfeld v., 1909
Refund on shipments of logs IV 362
Marinette-Green Bay Mfg. Co. v., 1912
Rates on excelsior bolts, reasonableness of XI 1 33
, Marinette <Sc Menominee Box Co. v., 1912
Refund on shipment of lumber IX 37
ei al., Mayer v., 1911
Refund on shipment of scrap iron and establishment of
joint rates >. VIII 328
et al., Mears-Slayton Lbr. Co. v., 1911
Refund on shipment of lumber and establishment of joint
rates VIII 247
et al., Menasha Paper Co. v., 1909 ^ •
Refund on shipment of pulp wood Ill 620
, y., 1911
Refund on shipment of wood pulp VI 586
, Merrill Woodenivare Co. v., 1908
Refund on shipments of logs Ill 54
• , Milwaukee, County of, v., 1909
Switching charges Ill 377
■ , Milwaukee Structural Steel Co. v., 1914
Refund on switching rates on building material XIII 673
et al., Milwaukee Western Malt Co. v., 1910
Refund from demurrage charges V 437
et at.. Mineral Point Zinc Co. p.,. 1911
Establishment of joint rates on zinc ore VII 583
, Mitchell Lewis Motor Co. v., 1913
Refund on shipment of auto gear frames XI , 709
, Moritz v., 1914
Refund on shipments of sand XIII 684
, Morse v., 1911
Refund on shipment of coal VI 531
— et al.. National Distilling Co. v., 1913
Rates on liquor, reasonableness of XI • 424
— et al.. National Mfg. Co. v., 1912
Rates on wagons, track connections IX 509
— et al.. National Refining Co. et al., v., 1911
Less than carload rates on petroleum products VI 326
— et al., Nelson-Berry Lbr. Co. v., 1907
Joint rates on slab wood, reasonableness of II 95
— , Nordberg Mfg. Co. y., 1915
Rates on sand, reasonableness of and refund XV 648
-, Northern Wood Co. v., 1913
Refund on shipment of wood XI 706
608 Cases Reported
Volume and Page
IX. RAILROAD CASES.
i. Rates and Refunds.
Chicago, M. & St. P. R. Co., Northwestern Iron Co. v., 1914
Rates on shipment of fuel oil, reasonableness of and
refund , XIV . 577
et at., Oglebay, Norton & Co. y., 1913
Refund on shipments of iron ore XII 716
, Oshkosh Bottle Wrapper Co. v., 1909
Refund on shipments of bottle wrappers IV 333
, Oshkosh Fuel Co. v., 1911
Refund on shipments of fuel wood and slabs VI 199
- et at., Pabst Brewing Co. et at. v., 1913
Rates on beer, reasonableness of XIII 42
- et at., Parfrey v., 1910
Refund on shipment of empty cheese boxes and estab-
lishment of joint rates on same IV 450; V 551
- et at., Parfrey Mfg. Co., The A. C, v., 1912
Refund on shipment of cheese boxes IX 517
— , Pennsylvania Coal So. Supply Co. v., 1914
Rates on coal, reasonableness of and refund XIV 746
- et al., Peshtigo Lbr. Co. v., 1914
Rates on cedar posts, reasonableness of and refund XIV 188
- v., 1914
Rates on logs, reasonableness of and refund XV 43
- et al.. Price v., 1909
Refund on shipments of lumber Ill 467
- et al.. Pulp & Paper Mfrs. Traffic Assn. i;., 1913
Rates on wood, reasonableness of XI 365
— v., 1914
Joint rates on pulp wood .....XIII 735
-, 1;., 1914
Rates on wood, reasonableness of XV 66
— , Rates on Sand, In re Invest., 1912
Rates on crushed stone, gravel and sand XI 98
— et at., Rhinelander Paper Co. v., 1911
Refund on shipment of pulp wood and restoration of
joint rates VIII 58
— , v., 1912
Estabhshment of joint rates and refund on shipment of
pulp wood IX 127
-, v., 1912
Authority of Commission to authorize specific refunds... X 632
— et al., Ringle et al. v., 1911
Reduction of rates on tile and brick VII 170
-, v., 1911
Joint rates on brick and tile VII 598
— , Rom Co. v., 1911
Refund on shipments of foundry patterns VIII 325
Cases Reported 609
Volume and Page
Chicago, M. & St. P. R. Co., Ruder Brwg. Co. v., 1914
Rates on beer, reasonableness of and refund XIV 508
, Ruedebush i;., 1913
Refund on shipments of brick, switching rates XII 248
, v., 1914
Rates on brick, reasonableness of and refund XIV 92
-, Schneider v., 1909
Rates on ice, reasonableness of IV 71
— et al., Schreier (Konrad) Co. v., 1910
Joint rates on barley V 668
-, Schultz v., 1912
Refund on shipments of coal, feed and refuse X 370
— , Schwartz v., 1907
Rates on coal, reasonableness of II 75
— et al.t Schwoegler & Kelly v., 1910
Refund on shipments of stone and estabhshment of
joint rates V 287
— , v., 1910
Refund on shipments of stone .....V 635
-, Shultis et al. v., 1908
Rates on milk and cream II 450
-, v., 1909
Rates on milk and cream Ill 425
— , Sinaiko Bros, v., 1910
Refund on shipments of scrap iron V 426
— et al., Somo River Lbr. Co. v., 1910
Refund on shipments of lumber IV 485
— et al.. Southern Wis. Cheese Men's Prot. Assn. v., 1906
Rates on cheese, reasonableness of I 143
— , Southern Wis. Sand & Gravel Co. v., 1913
Rates on sand and gravel and refund on shipments ..XIII 380
— et al.. Standard Lime <Sc Stone Co. v., 1912
Minimum carload weights and refund on shipment IX 228
— , Stange Co. v., 1910
Refund on shipments of logs V 596
— , v., 1913
Refund on shipment of logs XI 274
— , Stange-Ellis Lbr. Co. v., 1908
Rates on logs, reasonableness of and refund II 773
— , Summit Stove Co. v., 1913
Switching rates on scrap iron and refund XII 186
— , Switching Rates in Milw., In re Invest., 1914
Switching rates, reasonableness of XIV 261
— et al., Valvoline Oil Co. v., 1908
Transit privileges II 232
— , p., 1909
Rehearing on order granting transit privileges Ill 364
20
610 Cases Reported
Volume and Page
IX. RAILROAD CASES.
i. Rates and Refunds.
Chicago, M. Sc St. P. R. Co. et al., Waukesha Lime <Sc Stone
Co. v., 1912
Reduction of rates on crushed stone, gravel, lime and
sand IX 87; 347
, v., 1913
Rates on lime, reasonableness of XI 419
, v., 1913
Refund on shipments of gravel and crushed stone XIII 368
, v.y 1913
Switching rates on wood and refund on shipments XIII 372
, v., 1914
Switching rates, reasonableness of and refund XIII 534
, v., 1914
Switching and distance rates on wood, reasonableness of XIII 650
, ■ v., 1914
Rates on ground limestone, reasonableness of and refund. XIV 718
, Wausau Advancement Assn. v., 1914
Rates on beer, reasonableness of XIII 527
, Wausau Box Sc Lbr. Co. v., 1909
Refund on shipments of lumber IV 337
, v., 1910
Refund on shipments of lumber IV 457
, Wausau Paper Mills Co. i>., 1912
Refund on shipment of pulp IX 400
, v., 1913
Refund on shipment of wood XI 417
, v., 1914
Refund on shipments of ground wood pulp XIII 690
et a/.. Week Lbr. Co. v., 1914
Rates on logs, reasonableness of and refund v XV 53
• , Western Ind. Constr. Co. v., 1911
Refund on shipment of steel rails VIII 309
, Wheeler-Timlin Lbr. Co. v., 1911
Refund on shipment of lumber VI 434
et al., Whittet v., 1909
Refund on shipments of lumber IV 195
, v., 1910
Refund on shipments of cordwood IV 480
, Winkler v., 1909
Rates on milk and cream, readjustment of Ill 425
et al., Wisconsin Box Co. et al. v., 1909
Concentration rates on rough lumber Ill 605
, u., 1909
Refund on shipments of lumber IV 271; 327
, v., 1910
Refund on shipments of lumber IV 768
Cases Reported 611
Volume and Page
Chicago, M. & St. P. R. Co. et ai, Wisconsin Clay Mfrs.
Assn. v., 1914
Establishment of joint rates on tile and on brick and tile.XIII 756
et al. Wis. Pulp <Sc Paper Mfrs. v., 1911
Group rates, reasonableness of VI 436
et al., Wisconsin Retail Lbr. Dealers' Assn. u.j 1909
Establishment of joint rates Ill 471; 589
et al.y Wisconsin Sugar Co. v., 1915
Rates on sugar beets, reasonableness of and refund XV 650
, Wolf v., 1913
Rates on grain, reasonableness of and refund XIII 375
et al., Wright Lbr. Co. v., 1909
Refund on shipments of tanbark IV 175
, v., 1910
Refund on shipments of logs IV 770
Chicago, St. P. M. & 0. R. Co., Ahnapee Veneer Sc Seating
Co. p., 1909
Refund on shipment of logs .- IV 106
, Arpin Hardwood Lbr. Co. v., 1910
Rates on logs, reasonableness of V 441
et ai, Bailey Mfg. Co. v., 1913
Refund on shipment of heating apparatus XII 699
■ , Baldwin El. Lt. & Fuel Co. et al. v., 1907
Rates on coal, reasonableness of I 767
et al., Barney v., 1910
Refund on shipment of brick IV 775
— et al., Bartles-Maguire Oil Co. et al. v., 1911
Less than carload rates on petroleum products VI 326
—, Beaver Dam Lbr. Co. v., 1908
Rates on logs, reasonableness of and refund II 700
— , v., 1910
Refund on shipments of logs V 645
— et al.. Big Four Canning Co. v., 1914
Rates on box shooks, reasonableness of and refund XIV 84
— et al., Blackwell & Kaiser v.^ 1913
Refund on shipment of lumber XI 267
— , Campbell v., 1906
Rates on pine trimmings, reasonableness of I 197
— Carlson v., 1908
Rates on cordwood, reasonableness of II 705
— et al., Chippewa Sugar Co. et al. v., 1906
Rates on sugar beets and beet pulp, reasonableness of... I 258
— et al.. Creamery Package Mfg. Co. v., 1914
Rates on shipment of cheese boxes, reasonableness of and
refund XIV 761
— , Cumberland Fruit Pkg. Co. v., 1914
Rates on logs, reasonableness of and refund XIV 287
-, v., 1914
Rates on logs, reasonableness of and refund XV 158
612 Cases Reported
Volume and Page
IX. RAILROAD CASES.
i. Rates and Refunds.
Chicago, St. P. M. & 0. R. Co., Daniel Shaw Lbr. Co. v., 1908
Rates on logs, reasonableness of and refund II 342
, Dells Paper & Pulp Co. v., 1907
Rates on pulp wood, reasonableness of II 129
et al.y Eau Claire Concrete Co. v., 1912
Rates on concrete blocks, reasonableness of IX 82
• y Edward Hines Lbr. Co. v.y 1908
Rates on trainload shipments of logs, reasonableness of
and refund r II 390
, v., 1911
Refund on shipment of lumber VII 14
, Elbertson v., 1908
Rates on coal, reasonableness of II 593
— , Emerald Cooperative Creamery v., 1912
Refund on shipment of coal VIII 683
— et al., Engesether v., 1912
Refund on shipment of vegetables ....VIII 504
— , Ewer v., 1909
Refund on shipments of corn IV 331
—y Fountain Campbell Lbr. Co. v., 1908
Refund on shipments of logs Ill 63
— et al.y Gilman Mfg. Co. v., 1913
Refund on shipments of bolts....... XII 134
— et al.y Hopwood v., 1913
Refund on shipment of brick XII 217
— , Houser v., 1907
Passenger rates, reasonableness of I 510
— v.y 1907
Rates on live stock, reasonableness of I 778
— , In re Apply 1905
Concentration rates on wood, reasonableness of I 16
— , Kaiser Lbr. Co. v.y 1910
Refund on shipment of logs V 196
— , Kemmeter v.y 1909
Refund on shipments of bolts Ill 518
— , Kenfield <Sc Lamoreaux Lbr. Co. v.y 1909
Refund on shipment of wood bolts Ill 600
— , v.y 1910
Refund on shipments of wood bolts IV 465
— , v.y 1913
Refund on shipments of bolts XII 192
— '- v.y 1914
Rates on bolts, reasonableness of and refund XV 294
— et al.y Krafty Radtke d: Quilling Co. v., 1913
Refund on shipment of twine XIII 393
Cases Reported 613
Volume and Page
Chicago, St. P. M. cfc 0. R. Co.^ La Crosse Water Power Co. p.,
1910
Refund on shipment of construction material IV 412
, v., 1910
Refund on shipment of construction material VI 173
et al.f Leonard Seed Co. y,, 1914
Rates on seed peas, reasonableness of and refund XIV 97
— , Michel Brewing Co. v., 1910
Refund on shipment of beer VI 18
— New Dells Lbr. Co. v., 19U
Rates on ties and rails, reasonableness of and refund XIV 186
— New Richmond R. M. Co. v., 1908
Rates on grain, reasonableness of and refund II 610
— v., 1910
Refund on shipments of grain IV 488
— ei al.y p., 1913 ^
Refund on shipment of grain XI 272
— Noble et al. v., 1907
Rates on coal, reasonableness of 1 767
— et al.^ Parfrey u.y 1910
Refund on shipment of empty cheese boxes and joint
rate V 551
— et al, Pelletier Sc Co. v., 1910
Refund on shipments of lumber and establishment of
lower rates.... V 721
— et al.y Pulp <Sc Paper Mfrs. Traffic Assn. v., 1913
Rates on wood, reasonableness of XI 365
— , v., 1914
Rates on pulp wood, joint XIII 735
— , v., 1914
Rates on wood, reasonableness of XV 66
— , Pulp Wood Co. v., 1908
Rates on pulp wood, reasonableness of and refund II 250
— et al.j Ringle et al. y., 1911
Reduction of rates on tile and brick VII 170; 598
— , Roddis Lbr. <Sc Veneer Co. v., 1911
Refund on shipment of logs VI 571
— , Rust Owen Lbr. Co. y., 1911
Refund on shipments of logs VII 12
— et al., Selle & Co. v., 1909
Refund on shipment of excelsior Ill 595
— , v., 1914
Rates on excelsior, reasonableness of and refund XIV 225
— , Shaw Lbr. Co. v., 1909
Refund on shipments of logs IV 319
— , Sprague Lbr. Co. v., 1910
Refund on shipments of logs V 666
— , v., 1914
Rates on logs, reasonableness of and refund XIV 289
614 Cases Reported
Volume and Page
IX. RAILROAD CASES.
i. Rates and Refunds.
Chicago, St. P. M. & 0. R. Co., Steven & Jarvis Lbr. Co. v.,
1907
Rates on lumber, reasonableness of and refund II 131
, v., 1908
Refund on shipment of lumber Ill 66
, v., 1913
Refund on shipment of lumber XII 131
— , Superior Crushed Rock Co. v., 1910
Refund on shipment of crushed stone V 449
- v., 1911
Refund on shipment of crushed stone VI 219
-, Superior Mfg. Co. v., 1914
* Rates on slaked lime, reasonableness of and refund XV 160
, Uniform Stave Sc Package Co. v., 1909
Refund on shipments of logs IV 193
et al., Valvoline Oil Co. v., 1908
Transit privileges II 232
, v., 1909
Rehearing on order granting transit privileges Ill 364
et al., Waukesha Lime & Stone Co. v., 1914
Joint rates on agricultural limestone XIII 471
, v., 1914
Rates on ground limestone, reasonableness of and refund. XIV 579
, Webster Mfg. Co. v., 1910
Rates on lumber, reasonableness of V 95
, Wing & Getts v., 1911
Concentration rates established VI 625
et al., Wisconsin Clay Mfrs. Assn. v., 1914
Establishment of joint rates on tile and on brick and tile.. .XIII 756
Chippewa Lbr. Sc Boom Co. v. W. C. R. Co., 1908
Rates on logs, reasonableness of and refund II 607
Chippewa Sugar Co. et al. v. C. M. Sc St. P. R. Co. et al., 1906
Rates on sugar beets and beet pulp, reasonableness of I 258
Clark v. M. St. P. Sc S. S. M. R. Co., 1911
Refund on shipment of wood VIII 38
Clark Sc Fisher et al. v. C. Sc N. W. R. Co., 1912
Switching rates on gravel and sand X 436
Cochrane Co. v. C. M. Sc St. P. R. Co., 1908
Concentration rates on butter and eggs Ill 1
Colby Cheese Box Sc Silo Co. v. M. St. P. Sc S. S. M. R. Co., 1914
Rates on logs, reasonableness of and refund XV 469
Columbus Canning Co. v. C. M. Sc St. P. R. Co., 1913
Rates on canned goods, reasonableness of switching
rates XII 137
Connor Land Sc Lbr. Co. v. C. Sc N. W. R. Co., 1911
Refund on shipment of lumber VII 774
Cases Reported 615
Volume and Page
Connor Land & Lbr. Co. v. C. & N. W. R. Co., 1912
Refund on shipment of lumber VIII 697
V. Laona Sc Nor. R. Co. et al., 1913
Joint rates and service XII 761
Construction Material for Mfg. Plants, In re Rates on, 1906
Commodity rates on machinery and building material,
legality of I 210
Cook & Brown Lime Co. v. W. C. R. Co., 1908
Rates on cement, reasonableness of and refund II 298
Cordwood, In re Rates on, 1908
Rates on cordwood, reasonableness of II 705
Coughlin v. C. & N. W. R. Co., 1908
Refund on shipment of grain Ill 185
County of Milwaukee v. C. M. & St. P. R. Co., 1909
Switching rates Ill 377
Crary v. M. St. P. & S. S. M. R. Co. et al, 1909
Minimum carload weights on canned goods Ill 432
Creamery Package Mfg. Co. v. M. St. P. & S. S. M. R. Co.
et al., 1914
Rates on cheese boxes, reasonableness of and refund XIV 761
Cumberland Fruit Pkg. Co. v. C. St. P. M. cfc 0. R. Co., 1914
Rates on logs, reasonableness of and refund XIV 287
V. , 1914
Rates on logs, reasonableness of and refund XV 158
Curtis Sc Yale Co. v. C. M. & St. P. R. Co. et al., 1911
Establishment of joint rates VII 41
Daniel Shaw Lbr. Co. v. C. St. P. M. & 0. R. Co., 1908
Rates on logs, reasonableness of and refund II 342
Deeves Lbr. Co. v. C. & N. W. R. Co., 1912
Refund on shipment of lumber VIII 507
Dells Paper & Pulp Co. v. C. St. P. M. & 0. R. Co., 1907
Rates on pulp wood, reasonableness of II 129
Diamond Lbr. Co. et al. v. C. & N. W. R. Co., 1914
Rates on logs, reasonableness of XIV 628
Druecker v. C. & N. W. R. Co., 1909
Refund on shipments of wood Ill 594
Duluth, S. S. <Sc A. R. Co. et al, Bartles-Maguire Oil Co. v.,
1911
Less than carload rates on petroleum products VI 326
, Pulp & Paper Mfrs. T^raffic Assn. t;., 1913
Rates on wood, reasonableness of XI 365
■ , v., 1914
Joint rates on pulp wood XIII 735
-, v., 1914
Rates on wood, reasonableness of XV 66
Duluth-Superior Milling Co. et al. v. N. P. R. Co., 1910
Switching charges on grain V 598
D. , 1911
Refund of excess switching charges on grain VII 459
616 Cases Reported
Volume and Page
IX. RAILROAD CASES.
i. Rates and Refunds.
Dunbar & W. R. Co., Harrison p., 1908
Rates on cordwood, reasonableness of II 801
Eau Claire Concrete Co. v. C. M. & St. P. R. Co. et al., 1912
Rates on concrete blocks IX 82
Eckhart v. C. B. <Sc Q. R. Co. et a/., 1910
Refund on shipments of grain IV 781
Edward Nines Lbr. Co. v. C. St. P. M. & 0. R. Co., 1908
Rates on train load shipments of logs, reasonableness of
. and refund II 390
r. , 1911
Refund on shipment of lumber VII 14
Elbertson v. C. St. P. M. & 0. R. Co., 1908
Rates on coal, reasonableness of II . 593
Ellis <Sc Sons v. C. & N. W. R. Co., 1909
Refund on shipments of butter and eggs Ill 337
Ellis Lbr. Co. u. C. M. & St. P. R. Co., 1914
Rates on hog fuel, reasonableness of and refund XV 527
Elmore-Benjamin Coal Co. v. C. & N. W. R. Co., 1912
Refund on shipment of coal..i IX 396
Emerald Cooperative Creamery v. C. St. P. M. & 0. R. Co.,
1912
Refund on shipment of coal VIII 683
Engesether v. C. St. P. M. & O. R. Co. et al., 1912
Refund on shipment of vegetables VIII 504
Ewer v.C. St. P. M. & 0. R. Co., 1909
Refund on shipments of corn IV 331
Fagg & Taylor v. C. & N. W. R. Co., 1909
Refund on shipments of grain Ill 370
Fairchild & N. E. R. Co. et al.. New Richmond Roller Mills
Co. v., 1913
Refund on shipment of grain XI 272
, Pulp Sc Paper Mfrs. Traffic Assn. v., 1914
Joint rates on pulp wood XIII 735
et al.. Pulp & Paper Mfrs. Traffic Assn. v., 1914
Rates on wood, reasonableness of XV 66
, Waukesha Lime & Stone Co. v., 1914
Joint rates on agricultural limestone XIII 471
Fargo v. C. M. & St. P. R. Co., 1914
Rates on stone, reasonableness of and refund XV 162
Fargo, agent of Waukesha Lime & Stone Co. v. M. St. P. &
S. S. M. R. Co. et al., 1914
Joint rates on agricultural limestone XIII 471
Fergot v. C. & N. W. R. Co., 1909
Refund on shipment of wood bolts ....IV 248
Flambeau Paper Co. v. C. M. &: St. P. R. Co. et al., 1913
Reduction of joint rates on pulp and refund XI 699
Cases Reported 617
Volume and Page
Flavian v. C. M. & St. P. R. Co., 1909
Refund on shipments of logs Ill 385
Foster-Latimer Lbr. Co. v. M. St. P. <Sc S. S. M. i?. Co., 1913
Refund on shipment of lumber XII 239
Fountain-Campbell Lbr. Co. v. C. St. P. M. & 0. R. Co., 1908
Refund on shipments of logs Ill 63
Francey Coal, Stone <Sc Supply Co. v. C. M. & St. P. R. Co.,
1912
Refund on shipment of coal VIII 477
Franke Grain Co. v. C. & N. W. R. Co., 1908
Refund on shipments of grain.... Ill 182
V. , 1909
Refund on shipment of grain Ill 370
Franzen & Co. v. M. St. P. & S. S. M. R. Co., 1914
Rates on bottles, reasonableness of and refund XIV 77
Frontz v. Mineral PL & N. R. Co., 1914
Rates on stone tailings, reasonableness of and refund XIV 217
Gablowsky et al. v. C. & N. W. R. Co. et al, 1912
Refund on shipment of logs and reduction of joint rates... VI 1 1 544
Gillette-O'Leary Co. v. M. St. P. & S. S. M. R. Co., 1913
Refund on shipment of lumber XI 276
Gilman Mfg. Co. v. Stanley M. & P. R. Co. et al., 1913
Refund on shipments of bolts :XII 134
Goodman Lbr. Co. v. M. St. P. & S. S. M. R. Co., 1912
Refund on shipment of logs IX • 41
Goodwillie Bros. v. C. Sc N. W. R. Co., 1910
Refund on shipments of lumber IV 461
V. C. M. & St. P. R. Co., 1910
Refund on shipments of lumber IV 463
Green Bay <Sc W. R. Co., Alart & McQuire v., 1908
Rates on cucumbers and onions, reasonableness of and
refund II 340
et al., American Cigar Co. v., 1908
Joint rates on tobacco, reasonableness of II 807
, Barkhausen Coal Sc Dock Co. et al., v., 1914
Switching charges, absorption of XIV 172
et al., Barney v., 1910
Refund on shipment of brick IV 775
^ al., Bartles-Maguire Co. et al. v., 1911
Less than carload rates on petroleum products VI 326
et al.. Bell Sc Co. v., 1910
Refund on shipments of grain V 430
et al., Brittingham & Young Co. v., 1910 ^
Refund on shipments of lumber IV 772
, Browndeer Lbr. 6c Fuel Co. v., 1914
Rates on slab wood, reasonableness of and refund XIV 138
et al., Crary v., 1909
Minimum carload weights on canned goods Ill 432
618 Cases Reported
Volume and Page
IX. RAILROAD CASES.
i. Rates and Refunds.
Green Bay Sz W. R. Co. et al., Gablowsky et al. v., 1912
Refund on shipment of logs and reduction of joint rates.. ..VIII 544
et at.. National Refining Co. et al. p., 1911
Less than carload rates on petroleum products VI 326
et al.. Pulp <Sc Paper Mfrs. Traffic Assn. v., 1913
Rates on wood, reasonableness of XI 365
, , v., 1914
Joint rates on pulp wood XIII 735
, , v., 1914
Rates on wood, reasonableness of XV 66
et al.y Ringle et al. v., 1911
Reduction of rates on tile and brick VII 170; 598
et al., Vesper Wood Mfg. Co. v., 1914
Rates on silos, reasonableness of and refund XV 442
et al,, Waupaca Sand So. Gravel Co. v., 1914
Rates on sand and gravel, reasonableness of XV 482
et al., Waukesha Lime Sc Stone Co. v., 1914
Joint rates on agricultural Umestone XIII 471
et al., Wisconsin Clay Mfrs. Assn. v., 1914
Estabhshment of joint rates on tile and on brick and tile. .XIII 756
et at.. Wis. Pulp & Paper Mfrs. v., 1911
Group rates on coal VI 436
et al.. Wis. River Paper Sc Pulp Co. v,, 1911
Refund on shipment of wood pulp VIII 64
Green Bay Box & Lbr. Co. v. W. <Sc M. R. Co. et al., 1909
Refund on shipment of logs Ill 362
Greengo v. C. M. <Sc St. P. R. Co., 1914
Rates on skimmed milk, reasonableness of XV 532
Gregory Bros. v. C. M. & St. P. R. Co., 1908
Rates on coal, reasonableness of II 791
Greiling Bros. Co. v. C. M. Sz St. P. R. Co., 1914
Demurrage charges on shipments of stone XIV 449
Gund Brewing Co. v. C. Sc N. W. R. Co., 1909
Refund on shipments of beer IV 190
v. C. M. Sc St. P. R. Co., 1914
Rates on bottles, reasonableness of and refund XV 82
G. W. Jones Lbr. Co. v. C. M. Sc St. P. R. Co., 1911
Refund of demurrage charges VII 388
Hagen et al. v. C. Sc N. W. R. Co. et al, 1912
Refund on shipment of logs and reduction of joint rates.... VI 1 1 544
Hale-Mylrea Co. v. C. Sc N. W. R. Co., 1912
Refund on shipment of pihng X 639
V. , 1913
Refund on shipments of coal XII 709
Hanvnond-ChandlerLbr. Co. v. M. St. P. Sc S. S. M. R. Co., 1912
Refund on shipment of logs X 654
Cases Reported 619
Volume and Page
Hanowitz v. M. R. Co. et ai, 1908
Rates on logs and bolts, reasonableness of II 333
Harrison v. D. Sc W. R. Co., 1908
Rates on cordwood, reasonableness of II 801
Hazelhurst Sc S. E. R. Co. et al., Pulp & Paper Mfrs. Traffic
Assn. v., 1914
Joint rates on pulp wood XIII 735
, '■ v., 1914
Rates on wood, reasonableness of XV 66
Meddles Lbr. Co. v. C. M. Sc St. P. R. Co. et al., 1910
Joint rates on lumber V 714
Heineman Lbr. Co. v. C. Sc N. W. R. Co., 1909
Refund on shipments of lumber IV 356
et al. V. C. Sc N. W. R. Co., 1914
Rates on logs, reasonableness of XIV 628
p. C. M. Sc St. P. R. Co., 1912
Refund on shipment of logs IX 281
Heinz Co. v. C. M. Sc St. P. R. Co., 1909 "
Rates on cucumbers in brine IV 144
Higgins Spring Sc Axle Co. v. C. Sc N. W. R. Co., 1912
Refund on shipment of springs and axles IX 180
V. C. M. Sc St. P. R. Co., 1909
Refund on shipments of vehicle springs IV 384
V. ,1911
Refund on shipment of vehicle springs and reduction of
rates VIII 36; 283
HillsboTo Sc N. E. R. Co. et al.. Capital Fence Co. v., 1913
Rates on wire fencing, barb wire, staples and nails,
reasonableness of and refund XII 756
Hines Lbr. Co. {Edward) v. C. St. P. M. Sc 0. R. Co., 1908
Rates on trainload shipments of logs, reasonableness of
and refund II 390
u. , 1911
Refund on shipment of lumber VII 14
Hodges v. W. C. R. Co., 1906
Refund on shipment of lumber I 300
Hollister Amos Sc Co. et al. v. C. Sc N. W. R. Co., 1914
Rates on logs, reasonableness of XIV 628
Holt Lbr. Co. et al. v. C. Sc N. W. R. Co., 1914
Rates on logs, reasonableness of XIV 628
Hopwood V. C. St. P. M. Sc 0. R. Co. et al., 1913
Refund on shipment of brick XII 217
Hoftelet Co. v. C. M. Sc St. P. R. Co., 1910
Rates on dried brewers' grains V 705
Houser v. C. St. P. M. Sc O.R. Co. et al., 1907
Rates on live stock, reasonableness of I 778
V. , 1907
Passenger rates, reasonableness of I 510
620 Cases Reported
Volume and Page
IX. RAILROAD CASES.
i. Rates and Refunds.
Houser et al. v. W. C. R. Co. et al., 1906
Rates on grain, reasonableness of I 124
Howey v. C. M. & St. P. R. Co., 1909
Refund on shipment of ice boat Ill 504
Hoyt & Bergen v. C. Sc N. W. R. Co., 1912
Refund on shipment of live stock VIII 532
Hurlbut Co. et al. v. G. B. & W. R. Co., 1914
Switching charges, absorption of XIV 172
Ideal Lbr. & Coal Co. v. C. M. & St. P. R. Co., 1909
Refund on shipment of coke IV 171
Illinois C. R. Co. et al., Bartles-Maguire Oil Co. et al. v., 1911
Less than carload rates on petroleum products VI 326
et at., Chippewa Sugar Co. et al. v., 1906
Rates on sugar beets and beet pulp, reasonableness of... I 258
et al., Mayer v., 1909
Refund on shipment of scrap iron IV 268
— et al., Minch v., 1907
Joint rates on grain, establishment of I 599
— et al.. National Mfg. Co. v., 1912
Rates on wagons, track connections IX 509
— et al., Ringle et al. v., 1911
Reduction of rates on tile and brick •. VII 170; 598
— et al., Southern Wis. Cheesemen^s Prot. Assn. v., 1906
Rates on cheese, reasonableness of I 143
— et al., Valvoline Oil Co. v., 1908
Transit privileges 11 232
— , v., 1909
Rehearing on order granting transit privileges Ill 364
— et al., Waukesha Lime Sc Stone Co., v., 1914
Joint rates on agricultural limestone XIII 471
et al., Wisconsin Clay Mfrs. Assn. v., 1914
Establishment of joint rates on tile and on brick and tile... XI 1 1 756
In re Appl. C. M. & St. P. R. Co. et al., 1911
Demurrage charges VIII 101 ; 278
C. St. P: M. Sz 0. R. Co., 1905
Concentration rates on wood, reasonableness of I 16
M. St. P. Sc S. S. M. R. Co. et al., 1911
Demurrage charges VIII 278
W.-G. B. R. Co., 1908
Division of joint rates on potatoes II 291
In re Car Service and Demurrage Rules, 1912
Demurrage rules VIII 579
In re Constr. of Ch. 362, Laws of 1905, 1905
Reduced rates to homeseekers I 1
In re Invest. C. M. & St. P. R. Co. Rates on Sand, etc., 1912
Rates on crushed stone, gravel and sand, reduction of XI 98
Cases Reported 621
Volume and Page
In re Invest. C. M. & St. P. Switching Rates in Milwaukee, 1914
Switching rates, reasonableness of XIV 261
Passenger Rates M. St. P. & S. S. M. R. Co., 1907
Passenger rates, reasonableness of I 540
Rates on Live Stock, 1907
Rates on live stock, reasonableness of I 778
In re Marathon County R Co., 1911
Reasonableness of rates VII 392
In re Minimum Charges on Package Freight, 1907
Minimum charge of package freight, reasonableness of... 1 1 34
In re M. St. P. & S. S. M. R. Co's Waupaca Switching Rates,
1913
Switching rates, reasonableness of XI 485
In re Mixed Carloads of Grains and Seeds, 1910
Double minimum on mixed carloads ....V 711
Jn re Rates on Agricultural Implements, 1913
Rates on agricultural implements XI 508
on Construction Material for Mfg Plants, 1906
Commodity rates on machinery and building material,
legality of I 210
on Cordwood, 1908
Rates on cordwood, reasonableness of II 705
on Grain, 1906
• Rates on grain, reasonableness of I 124
on Milk and Cream, 1908
Rates on milk and cream, reasonableness of II 450
, 1908
Rates on milk and cream Ill 425
on Pulp Wood, 1908
Rates on pulp wood, reasonableness of II 168
on Waste Lumber Products, 1906
Rates on waste lumber products, reasonableness of I 291
International Harvester Corporation v. C. M. Sc St. P. R. Co.,
1914
Refund on shipments of slag XIII 640
V. , 1914
Rates on sand, reasonableness of and refund XV 164
Island Paper Co. v. W. C. R. Co., 1906
Rates on pulp wood, reasonableness of ; I 234
Ives Co. V. M. St. P. Sc S. S. M. R. Co., 1910
Refund on shipments of fruit V 675
Jahns Co. v. M. St. P. Sc S. S. M. R. Co., 1910
Refund on shipments of hay V 480
Jefferson Brick &: Tile Co. v. C. <Sc N. W. R. Co., 1912
Refund on shipment of lumber waste VIII 553
Joannes Bros. v. C. M. <Sc St. P. R. Co., 1909
Refund on shipment of groceries Ill 422
John Gund Brewing Co. v. C. M. & St. P. R. Co., 1914
Rates on bottles, reasonableness of and refund XV 82
622 Cases Reported
Volume and Page
IX. RAILROAD CASES.
i. Rates and Refunds.
John H. Allen Seed Co. v. C. & N. W. R. Co. el al., 1915
Rates on peas and beans, reasonableness of and refund XV 641
John Schroeder Lbr. Co. v. C. & N. W. R. Co. et al, 1914
Rates on lumber, reasonableness of and refund XIV 823
V. M. St. P. Sc S. S. M. R. Co., 1913
Refund on shipments of lumber XII 701
V. , 1914
Rates on shipments of logs, reasonableness of and re-
fund , XIV 542
John Week Lbr. Co. v. C. M. Sc St. P. R. Co. et a/., 1914
Rates on logs, reasonableness of and refund XV 53
Johns-Manville Co. v. C. M. & St. P. R. Co., 1909
Refund on shipments of flux stone IV 114
Johnson & Hill Co. v. M. St. P. Sc S. S. M. R. Co., 1914
Rates on fuel wood, reasonableness of and refund XIV 752
Jones (G. W.) Lbr. Co. v. C. Sc N. W. R. Co., 1907
Group rates on lunlber, reasonableness of I 520
u. C. M. Sc St. P. R. Co., 1911
Refund on demurrage cha<rges VII 388
Kaiser Lbr. Co. u. C. St. P. M. Sc 0. R. Co., 1910
Refund on shipment of logs '. V 196
Kamm Sc Co. et al. v. C. Sc N. W. R. Co., 1909
Refund on shipment of grain Ill 370
KargerBros. u. C. Sc N. W. R.Co., 1908
Refund on shipment of grain Ill 185
Kaufman Sc Co. v. W. Sc N. R. Co., 1911
Refund on shipment of salt VI 497
Keith Sc HilesLbr. Co. v. M. St. P. Sc S. S. M. R. Co. et al.,
1912
Refund on shipment of logs IX 57
Kemmeter v. C. St. P. M. Sc 0. R. Co., 1909
Refund on shipment of bolts Ill 518
Kenfield Sc Lamoreaux Lbr. Co. v. C. St. P. M. Sc 0. R. Co.,
1909
Refund on shipment of wood bolts.. Ill 600
V. . 1910
Refund on shipments of wood bolts IV 465
V. , 1913
Refund on shipments of bolts XII 192
V. , 1914
Rates on bolts, reasonableness of and refund XV 294
Keogh et al. v. C. M. Sc St. P. R. Co., 1908
Rates on excelsior bolts, reasonableness of II 717
Keogh Excelsior Mfg. Co. et al. v. C. M. Sc St. P. R. Co., 1908
Rates on excelsior bolts, reasonableness of II 717
Cases Reported 623
Volume and Page
Kewaunee, G. B. (Sc W, R. Co. et a/., Ahnapee Veneer &
Seating Co. v., 1909
Refund on shipment of lumber IV 109
, Bartles-Maguire Oil Co. et al. v., 1911
Less than carload rates on petroleum products VI 326
, Brittingham <Sc Young Co. v., 1910
Refund on shipments of lumber IV 772
Kieckhefer Box Co. u. C. M. & St. P. R. Co. et al., 1912
Rates on boxes, reduction of XI 101
V. , 1915
Switching rates, reasonableness of XV 564
Kiel Wooden Ware Co. u. C. M. & St. P. R. Co., 1909
Refund on shipment of logs Ill 597
D. , 1912
Refund on shipment of cheese boxes IX 278
Kinney et al. u. W. C. R. Co. et al., 1906
Rates on grain, reasonableness of I 124
Konopatzke v. C. & N. W. R. Co. et al., 1912
Joint rates, establishment of ^ VIII 556
Konrad Schreier Co. v. C. M. Sc St. P. R. Co. et al., 1910
Joint rates on barley V ' 668
Krajt & Bros. Co. et al. v. M. P. Sz N. R. Co. et al, 1914
Rates on cheese, reasonableness of XV 217
Kraft, Radtke Sz Quilling Co. v. C. M. & St. P. R. Co. et al.,
1913
Refund on shipment of twine XIII 393
Krouskop V. C. M. Sc St. P. R. Co., 1910
Refund on shipment of rye VI 178
V. , 1910
Refund on shipment of lumber and reduction of rates.... VI 184
V. ,1911
Refund on shipment of lumber VIII 32
Krull Comm. Co. v. C. Sc N. W. R. Co., 1912
Refund of demurrage charges IX 60
La Crosse Sc S. E. R. Co. et al., Borden Co. v., 1913
Establishment of concentration rates on tobacco, and
refund XI 439
, Bartles-Maguire Oil Co. et al. v., 1911
Less than carload rates on petroleum products VI 326
et al., Nafl Refining Co. et al. v., 1911
Less than carload rates on petroleum products VI 326
La Crosse Water Power Co. v. C. St. P. M. & 0. R. Co., 1910
Refund on shipment of construction material IV 412
'■ V. , 1910
Refund on shipment of construction material VI 173
Laona Sc N. R. Co. et al., Connor Lbr. Sc Land Co. v., 1913
Joint rates and service XII 761
, Pulp Sc Paper Mfrs. Traffic Assn. v., 1914
Joint rates on pulp wood XIII 735
624 Cases Reported
Volume and Page
IX. RAILROAD CASES.
i. Rates and Refunds.
Laona dc A''. R. Co, et al. Pulp Sc Paper Mfrs. Traffic Assn.
v., 1914
Rates on wood, reasonableness of XV 66
Lauer & Co. v. C. Sc N. W. R. Co., 1908
Refund on shipment of grain Ill 185; 370
Leonard Seed Co. v. C. St. P. M. & 0. R. Co. et al, 1914
Rates on seed peas, reasonableness of and refund XIV 97
Lieberman v. C. M. & St. P. R. Co., 1909
Commutation rates Ill 330
Lindsay Bros. v. C. M. & St. P. R. Co., 1908
Refund on shipment of agricultural implements Ill 114
D. M. St. P. Sc S. S. M. R. Co., 1911
Refund on shipments of vehicles and agricultural imple-
ments VII 17
ListmanMillCo.v.C.&N.W.R.Co.,\^n
Refund on shipment of flour VI 207
Locke V. C. & N. W. R. Co., 1913
Rates on scrap iron, reasonableness of XIII 366
Loftus-Hubbard Elevator Co. v. W. C. R. Co., 1906
Minimum weights on hay, reasonableness of I 91
■ Lyman-Smith Grain Co. v. C. Sc N. W. R. Co., 1908
Refund on shipment of grain , Ill 185
Mace Lime Co. v. C. S: N. W. R. Co., 1909
Refund on shipments of wood Ill 590
V. , 1913
Rates on lime, reasonableness of XIII 38
Manitowoc Making Co. v. W. C. R. Co. et al, 1906
Joint rates on barley, reasonablenesis of I 69
Ma/750/? & Weinfeld v. C. M. & St P. R. Co., 1909
Refund on shipments of logs IV 362
Marathon County R. Co., In re, 1911
Reasonableness of rates .....VII 392
• , Streveler v., 1907
Rates on logs, reasonableness of; adequacy of train serv-
ice and station facilities I 831
' , v., 1907
Carload rates for "jimmy" cars..- II 64
' , v., 1912
Establishment of joint rates X 409
" et al, et al. v., 1913
Division of joint rates... XII 170
Marinette-Green Bay Mfg. Co. v. C. M. Sc St. P. R. Co., 1912
Rates on excelsior bolts, reasonableness of XI 133
Marinette Sc Menominee Box Co. v. C. M. Sc St. P. R. Co.,
1912
Refund on shipment of lumber IX 37
Cases Reported 625
Volume and Page
Marinette, Tomahawk S: W. R. Co. et al.y Drown Land Sc Lbr.
Co. v., 1911
Refund on shipment of lumber VII 581
, Pulp & Paper Mfrs. Traffic Assn. y., 1914
Joint rates on pulp wood XIII 735
■ , p., 1914
Rates on wood, reasonableness of XV 66
Mason-Donaldson Lbr. Co. et al. v. C. & N. W. R. Co., 1914
Rates on logs, reasonableness of XIV 628
— V. , 1915
Rates on lumber, reasonableness of and refund XV 575
V. M. St. P. & S. S. M. R. Co., 1914
Switching rates on lumber, reasonableness of and refund..XIV 82
— V. , 1914
Rates on lumber, reasonableness of and refund XV 388
Mason 6c Martin v. C. & N. W. R. Co., 1912
Refund on shipment of live stock IX 74
Mattoon R. Co. et at., Hanowitz v., 1908
Rates on logs and bolts, reasonableness of II 333
, Paxton 6c Lightbody Co. v., 1910
Joint and local rates, discrimination in car service V 531
Maxson Lbr. Co. v. C. 6c N. W. R. Co., 1913
Refund on shipment of wood XI 269
Mayer v. C. 6c N. W. R. Co. et at., 1911
Refund on shipment of scrap iron and establishment of
joint rates VIII 328
V. I. C. R. Co. et aU 1909
Refund on shipment of scrap iron ^ IV 268
McEachron Co. v. C. 6c N. W. R. Co., 1911
Refund on shipments of potatoes VI 667
MearS'Slayton Lbr. Co. v. Wis. 6c N. R. Co. et al., 1911
Refund on shipment of lumber and establishment of
joint rates VIII 247
Medford Fruit Package Co. v. W. C. R. Co. et at., 1906
Rates on berry boxes, reasonableness of I 44
Menasha Paper Co. v. C. M. 6c St. P. R. Co. et al., 1909
Refund on shipment of pulp wood Ill 620
V. , 1911
Refund on shipment of wood pulp VI 586
V. M. St. P. 6c S. S. M. R. Co., 1909
Refund on shipment of wood pulp IV 360
V. , 1911
Refund on shipment of paper VIII 78
V. , 1912
Refund on shipment of slabs IX 39
u. W. C. R. Co., 1908
Refund on shipment of paper II 300
Menasha Wooden Ware Co. et al. v. C. 6c N. W. R. Co., 1914
Rates on logs, reasonableness of XIV 628
626 Cases Reported
Volume and Page
IX. RAILROAD CASES.
i. Rates and Refunds.
Menasha Wooden Ware Co. v. M. St. P. <Sc S. S. M. R. Co.,
1913
Refund on shipment of logs and bolts XI 746
V. W. C. R. Co., 1906
Rates on wood bolts, legality of ante-dated tariff *I 108
V. , 1908
Rates on logs, reasonableness of and refund II 589
Merrill Woodenware Co. v. C. M. & St. P. R. Co., 1908
Refund on shipments of logs Ill 54
V. M. St. P. & S. S. M. R. Co., 1914
Rates on bolts, reasonableness of and refund XIV 805
Meyer v. Rib Lake Lbr. Co. et al., 1911
Operation of branch line and railroad rates VII 401
Michel Brewing Co. v. C. & N. W. R. Co. et al, 1910
Refund on shipment of beer VI 18
Milk Sc Cream, In re Rates on, 1908
Rates on milk and cream, reasonableness of Ill 425
Miller v. C. & N. W. R. Co., 1914
Rates on fuel wood and fence posts, reasonableness of and
refund XIV 707
Milwaukee Bag Co. u. M. St. P. & S. S. M. R. Co. et al, 1912
Refund on shipment of bags IX 182
Milwaukee, County of, v. C. M. & St. P. R. Co., 1909
Switching charges Ill 377
Milwaukee Sandstone Co. v. C. & N. W. R. Co., 1914
Refund on shipments of stone paving blocks XIII 671
Milwaukee Structural Steel Co. v. C. M. <Sc St. P. R. Co., 1914
Switching rates on building material and refund on
shipments XIII 673
Milwaukee-Waukesha Brewing Co. v. C. & N. W. R. Co., 1910
Rates on beer, reasonableness of V 546
V. ,1911
Refund on shipment of beer VI 518
Milwaukee-Western Fuel Co. v. C. & N. W. R. Co., 1909
Refund on shipments of coal Ill 517
Milwaukee Western Malt Co. v. C. M. & St. P. R. Co. et al,
1910
Refund from demurrage charges V 437
Minch V. C.& N. W. R. Co. et al, 1907
Joint rates on grain, establishment of I 599
Mineral Pt. <& N. R. Co., Frontz i;., 1914
Rates on stone tailings, reasonableness of and refund XIV 217
et al, Kraft Sc Bros. Co. et al, v., 1914
Rates on cheese, reasonableness of XV 217
et al. Mineral Point Zinc Co. v., 1911
Joint rates on zinc ore, establishment of VII 583
Cases Reported 627
Volume and Page
Mineral PL <Sc N. R. Co., Plymouth Cheese Co. et al. p., 1914 .
Rates on cheese, reasonableness of XV 217
, Sandoval Zinc Co. v., 1906
Rates on lead and zinc ore, reasonableness of I 99
, Semrad Bros. Sc Pusch Brwg. Co. v., 1912
Joint rates on beer, establishment of IX 76
, v., 1913
Refund on shipments of beer and empty beer carriers XII 236
, Waukesha Lime Sz Stone Co. p., 1914
Joint rates on agricultural limestone XIII 471
Mineral Point Zinc Co. v. C. <Sc N. W. R. Co. et al, 1911
Joint rates on zinc ore, establishment of VII 583
Minimum charges on Package Freight, In re, 1907
Minimum charge on package freight, reasonableness of... II 34
Minneapolis Lbr. Co. v. N. P. R. Co. et al., 1909
Refund on shipment of logs IV 206
Minneapolis, St. P. & S. S. M. R. Co., A. S. Badger Co. v.,
1913
Refund on shipment of lumber XI 434
et al., Ahnapee Veneer Sz Seating Co. v., 1909
Refund on shipment of lumber IV 109
, v., 1910
Refund on shipments of logs V 643
, v., 1912
Refund on shipments of logs IX 482
, E. P. Bacon & Co. v., 1912
Refund on shipment of grain IX 62; 468
, Badger Basket Sc Veneer Co. v., 1913
Refund on shipment of logs XI 492
et al.. Badger Co. v., 1910 (?•
Refund on shipment of lumber V ^ 729
. v., 1911
Refund on shipment of lumber VIII 125
et al., Barnes v., 1910
Refund on shipment of wood IV 478
et al., Bartles-Maguire Oil Co. et al. v., 1911
Less than carload rates on petroleum products VI 326
et al.. Bell Sc Co. v., 1910
Refund on shipments of grain V 430
et al, Brittingham Sc Young Co. v., 1910
Refund on shipments of lumber IV 772
et al.. Brown Bros. Lbr. Co. v., 1910
Refund on shipments of lumber and reduction of joint
rates V 647; 655; 663
, v., 1914
Rates on car staked, reasonableness of and refund XIV 204
, Brown Bros. Lbr. Co. v., 1915
Rates on logs, reasonableness of and refund XV 569
628 Cases Reported
Volume and Page
IX. RAILROAD CASES.
i. Rates and Refunds.
Minneapolis, St. P. & S. S. M. R. Co., Brown Land & Lbr.
Co: v., 1911
Refund on shipment of lumber VII 581
et al., Callaway Fuel Co. v., 1914
Rates on coke, reasonableness of and refund XIII 694
, Clark v., 1911
Refund on shipment of wood VIII 38
, Colby Cheese Box Sc Silo Co. v., 1914
Rates on logs, reasonableness of and refund XV 469
et al., Crary v., 1909
Minimum carload weights on canned goods Ill 432
et al.. Creamery Package Mfg. Co. v., 1914
Rates on cheese boxes, reasonableness of and refund XIV 761
et al., Curtis Sc Yale Co. v., 1911
Joint rates, establishment of Vfl 41
et al., Eau Claire Concrete Co. v., 1912
Rates on concrete blocks .' IX 82
et al.. Flambeau Paper Co. v., 1913
Refund on shipment of pulp and reduction of joint rate.XI 699
, Foster-Latimer Lbr. Co. v., 1913
Refund on shipment of lumber XII 239
, Franzen Sc Co. v., 1914
Rates on bottles, reasonableness of and refund XlV 77
, Gillette-O'Leary Co. v., 1913
Refund on shipment of lumber XI 276
■ , Goodman Lbr. Co. v., 1912
Refund on shipment of logs .- IX 41
, Hammond-Chandler Lbr. Co. v., 1912
Refund on shipment of logs X 564
et al.. In re AppL, 1911
Demurrage charges VIII 278
■ , Ives Co. v., 1910
Refund on shipments of fruit V 675
• ; Jahns Co. v., 1910
Refund on shipments of hay V 480
, John Schroeder Lbr. Co. v., 1913
Refund on shipments of lumber XII 701
■ , v., 1914
Rates on logs, reasonableness of and refund XIV 542
• , Johnson & Hill Co. v., 1914
Rates on fuel wood, reasonableness of and refund XIV 752
" et al., Keith & Hiles Lbr. Co. v., 1912
Refund on shipment of logs IX 57
• et al., Kieckhefer Box Co. v., 1912
Rates on boxes, reduction of XI 101
, Lindsay Bros, v., 1911
Refund on shipment of vehicles and agricultural imple-
ments VII 17
Cases Reported 629
Volume and Page
Minneapolis, Si. P. So S. S. M. R. Co., Mason-Donaldson
Lbr. Co. v., 1914
Switching rates on lumber, reasonableness of and refund. . XIV 82
, y., 1914
Rates on lumber, reasonableness of and refund XV 388
et al., Menasha Paper Co. v., 1909
Refund on shipment of pulp wood Ill 620
-. v., 1909
Refund on shipment of wood pulp IV 360
— eial., -y., 1911
Refund on shipment of wood pulp VI 586
-, v., 1911
Refund on shipment of paper VIII 78
-, v., 1912
Refund on shipment of slabs IX 39
— , Menasha Woodenware Co. v., 1913
Refund shipments of logs and bolts XI' 746
— , Merrill Woodenware Co. y,, 1914
Rates on bolts, reasonableness of and refund XIV " 805
— et al.f Milwaukee Bag Co. v., 1912
Refund on shipments of bags IX 182
— , Morgan z;., 1911
Refund on shipment of cordwood VIII 34
-, v., 1912
Refund on shipment of wood IX 165
— , Morton Salt Co. i'., 1911
Refund on shipment of salt VI 499
— , Northern Wood Co. v., 1911
Refund on shipment of slabs VIII 62
— et al., Oglebay, Norton & Co. v., 1913
Refund on shipments of iron ore XII 716
— , Osceola Mill Sc Elev. Co. v., 1910
Refund on shipments of grain IV 483
— , v., 1910
Refund on shipments of grain V 291
— v., 1914
Rates on hay, reasonableness of and refund XIV 759
— , Oshkosh Excelsior Mfg. Co. v., 1914
Rates on bolts, reasonableness of and refund XV 178
— , Oshkosh Fuel Co. v., 1911
Refund on shipment of wood VI 669
— , Owen ScBro. Co. v., 1912
Refund on shipment of buckwheat IX 43
— et al., PabstBrg. Co. et al. v., 1913
Rates on beer, reasonableness of XIII 42
— , Philadelphia <Sc R.C.<Sc I. Co. p., 1912
Refund on shipments of coal VIII 542
— Phoenix Wall Paper Mfg. Co. p., 1910
Refund on shipment of print paper VI 182
630 Cases Reported
Volume and Page
IX. RAILROAD CASES.
i. Rates and Refunds.
Minneapolis, St. P. & S. S. M. R. Co. et al.. Pierce v., 1914
Rates on lumber, reasonableness of and refund XIV 754; XV 473
et al. Price u., 1909
Refund on shipments of lumber Ill 467
— — et al.y Pulp & Paper Mfrs. Traffic Assn. u., 1913
Rates on wood, reasonableness of XI 365
, v., 1914
Joint rates on pulp wood XIII 735
— v., 1914
»
Rates on wood, reasonableness of XV 66
— et al.y Pulpwood Co. of Appleton v., 1910
Refund on shipments of pulp wood VI 175
— , Reitbrock Land & Lbr. Co. v.y 1913
Refund on shipment of lumber XI 447
— et al., Rhinelander Paper Co. v., 1911
Refund on shipment of pulp and restoration of joint
rates VIII 58
-, v., 1911
Rates on pulp wood, reasonableness of VIII 105
— , v., 1912
Refund on shipment of pulp wood.....N IX 111
— , v., 1912
Refund on shipment of pulp wood and establishment of
joint rates IX 127
— , v., 1912
Authority of Commission to authorize specific refunds.. ..X 632
— , v.y 1913
Refund on shipment of wood XI 393
— , v., 1913
Refund on shipments of car stakes XIII 84
— , v., 1914
Rates on wood, reasonableness of and refund XV 171
— et at., Ringle et al. v., 1911
Rates, on tile and brick, reduction of VII 170
— , — -v., 1911
Joint rates on brick and tile VII 598
— , Rusk Box & Furniture Co. y., 1914
Switching rates on lumber, reasonableness of and refund. ..XIV 136
— et al., Schwoegler Sc Kelly v., 1910
Refund on shipments of stone V 287; 635
— , H. W. Selle & Co. v., 1914
Refund on shipments of excelsior XII 635
— , - — v., 1914
Rates on excelsior, reasonableness of and refunds XIV 544
— et al., Somo River Lbr. Co. v., 1910
Refund on shipments of lumber IV 485
Cases Reported 631
Volume and Page
Minneapolis, St. P. & S. S. M. R. Co. et al.. Standard Lime
& Stone Co. v., 1912
Minimum carload weights and refund on shipment IX 228
, Sianz Co. v., 1911
Refund on shipment of cheese VI 579
et ai, Stevens Lbr. Co. v., 1913
Rates on lumber, discrimination in switching rates XI 476
, Sullivan v., 1914
Rates on wood, reasonableness of, and refund XIII 687
— - et al., Valvoline Oil Co. v., 1908
Transit privileges II 232
, v., 1909
Rehearing on order granting transit privileges Ill 364
et al.. Vesper Wood Mfg. Co. v., 1914
Rates on silos, reasonableness of and refund XV 442
, Waukesha Lime Sc Stone Co. v., 1912
Refund on shipment of stone IX 167
, v., 1913
Refund on shipments of gravel and crushed stone XIII 368
, v., 1913
Switching rates on wood XIII 372
, v., 1914
Joint rates on agricultural limestone XIII 471
, v., 1914
Switching rates, reasonableness of and refund XIII 534
, v., 1914
Switching and distance rates on wood, reasonableness of .. .XI 1 1 650
, v., 1914
Rates on ground limestone, reasonableness of and refund. .XIV 718
, Waupaca Switching Rates, In re, 1913
Switching rates, reasonableness of XI 485
et al.. Week Lbr. Co. v., 1914
Rates on logs, reasonableness of and refund XV 53
, Westboro Lbr. Co. v., 1913
Refund on shipments of tanbark XIII 378
• et al.. Wis. Clay Mfrs. Assn. v., 1914
Establishment of joint rates on tile and on brick and tile. ..XIII 756
■ et al.. Wis. Fruit Package Co. v., 1910
Refund on shipment of fruit packages V 642
, Wis. Pulp & Paper Mfrs. v., 1911
Refund on shipment of pulp wood VIII 16
, Wis. Sugar Co. v., 1915
Rates on sugar beets, reasonableness of and refund XV 650
Mitchell Lewis Motor Co. v. C. M. Sc St. P. R. Co., 1913
Refund on shipment of auto gear frames XI 709
Mixed Carloads of Grains and Seeds, In re, 1910
Double minimum on mixed carloads V 711
Mohr-Holstein Comm. Co. v. C. & N. W. R. Co., 1908
Refund on shipment of grain.. Ill 185
632 Cases Reported
Volume and Page
IX. RAILROAD CASES.
i. Rates and Refunds.
Mohr-Holsiein Comm. Co. v. C. & N. W. R. Co., 1909
Refund on shipment of grain Ill 370
Mohr Lbr. Co. et al. v. C. M. & St. P. R. Co., 1915
Rates on saw logs and bolts, reasonableness of and refund XV 645
Moore & Callaway Lbr. Co. et al. v. C. Sc N. W. R. Co., 1914
Rates on logs, reasonableness of XIV 628
Morgan v. M. St. P. & S. S. M. R. Co., 1911
Refund on cordwood VIII 34
— — V. , 1912
Refund on shipment of wood IX 165
Moritz V. C. M. & St. P. R. Co., 1914
Refund on shipments of sand XIII 684
Morse v. C. M. & St. P. R. Co., 1911
Refund on shipment of coal VI 531
Mortensen Co. et al. v. C. M. & St. P. R. Co., 1915
Rates on saw logs and bolts, reasonableness of and refund.. XV 645
Mortenson Lbr. Co. et al. v. C. cfc N. W. R. Co., 1914
Rates on logs, reasonableness of XIV 628
Morton Salt Co. v. M. St. P. & S. S. M. R. Co., 1911
Refund on shipment of salt VI . 499
National Distilling Co. v. C. & N. W. R. Co. et al., 1913
Rates on hquor, reasonableness of XI 424
National Mfg. Co. v. I. C. R. Co. et al., 1912
Rates on wagons, track connections IX 509
National Refining Co. et al. v. C. & N. W. R. Co. et al., 1911
Less than carload rates on petroleum products VI 326
Nekoosa-Edwards Paper Co. {Intervener), Rhinelander Paper
Co. V. M. St. P. & S. S. M. R. Co., 1912
Reduction of rates and refund on shipment of pulp wood.. IX 111
Nelson-Berry Lbr. Co. v. W. C. R. Co. et al., 1907
Joint rates on slab wood, reasonableness of II 95
New Dells Lbr. Co. v. C. St. P. M. & 0. R. Co., 1914 '
Rates on ties and rails, reasonableness of and refund XIV 186
New Richmond R. M. Co. v. C. St. P. M. & 0. R. Co., 1908
Rates on grain, reasonableness of and refund II 610
V. , 1910
Refund on shipments of grain IV 488
V. F. & N. E. R. Co. et al, 1913
Refund on shipment of grain XI 272
Noble et al. v. C. St. P. M. & 0. R. Co., 1907
Rates on coal, reasonableness of I 767
Nordberg Mfg. Co. v. C. M. & St. P. R. Co., 1915
Rates on sand, reasonableness of and refund XV 648
Northern Hemlock <Sc Hardwood Mfrs. Assn. et al.. Pulp Sz
Paper Mfrs. Traffic Assn. y., 1913
Rates on wood, reasonableness of XI 365
Cases Reported 633
Volume and Page
Northern Hemlock & Hardwood Mfrs. Assn. v. C. & N. W.
R. Co., 1913
Rates on logs, reasonableness of XII 241
Northern Milling Co. v. C. & N. W. R. Co., 1914
Refund on shipments of hay XIII 468
Northern P. R. Co., Duluth Superior Milling Co., et at.
v., 1910
Switching charges on grain V 598
, v., 1911
Refund of excess switching charges on grain VII 459
et at., Minneapolis Lbr. Co. v., 1909
Refund on shipment of logs IV 206
et al.. Pulp Sz Paper Mfrs. Traffic Assn. v., 1913
Rates on wood, reasonableness of XI 365
, v., 1914
Joint rates on pulp wood XIII 735
et al.. Pulp So Paper Mfrs. Traffic Assn. v., 1914
Rates on wood, reasonableness of XV 66
et al., Ringle et al. v., 1911
Reduction of rates on tile and brick VII 170
, i;., 1911
Joint rates on brick and tile VII 598
-, City of Superior v., 1907
Refund on shipment of lumber II 126
et al, Webster Mfg. Co. v.y 1914
Joint rates on logs XIV 703
et al. Wis. Clay Mfrs. Assn. v.y 1914
Establishment of joint rates on tile and on brick and
tile XIII 756
Northern Pine Mfrs. Assn. et al.. Pulp <& Paper Mfrs. Traffic
Assn.. v., 1913
Rates on wood, reasonableness of XI 365
Northern Wood Co. v. C. M. <Sc St. P. R. Co., 1913
Refund on shipment of wood XI 706
V. M. St. P. & S. S. M. R. Co., 1911
Refund on shipment of slabs VIII 62
Northwestern Iron Co. v. C. M. <Sc St. P. R. Co., 1914
Rates on fuel oil, reasonableness of and refund XIV 577
Oconto Lbr. Co. et al. v. C. Sc N. W. R. Co., 1914
Rates on logs, reasonableness of XIV 628
Oglebay, Norton & Co. v. M. St. P. & S. S. M. R. Co. et al.,
1913
Refund on shipments of iron ore XII 716
Osceola Mill & Elev. Co. v. M. St. P. <Sc S. S. M. JR. Co., 1910
Refund on shipments of grain '...IV 483
u. , 1910
Refund on shipments of grain V 291
V. , 1914
Rates on hay, reasonableness of and refund XIV 759
634 Cases Reported
ff
Volume and Page
IX. RAILROAD CASES.
i. Rates and Refuifds.
Oshkosh Bottle Wrapper Co. v. C. M. & St. P. R. Co., 1909
Refund on shipments of bottle wrappers IV 333
Oshkosh Excelsior Mfg. Co. v. M. St. P. 6c S. S. M. R. Co., 1914
Rates on bolts, reasonableness of and refund XV 178
Oshkosh Fuel Co. v. C. Sc N. W. R. Co., 1911
Refund on shipments of slabs, slab wood and cordwood VI 222
V. , 1913
Refund on shipment of wood XI 400
V. , 1914
Rates on dry slab wood and edging, reasonableness of and
refund XIII 775
V. C. M. & St. P. R. Co., 1911
Refund on shipment of fuel wood and slabs VI 199
• V. M. St. P. & S. S. M. R. Co., 1911
Refund on shipment of wood VI 669
Oshkosh Logging Tool Co. v. C. cfc N. W. R. Co., 1907
Rates on logs, reasonableness of II 116
Owen & Brother Co. v. C. <Sc N. W. R. Co., 1908
Refund on shipment of grain Ill 185
V. , 1909
Refund on shipment of grain Ill 370; 391
V. , 1914
Rates on grain, reasonableness of and refund XIV 79
V. M. St. P. & S. S. M. R. Co., 1912
Refund on shipment of buckwheat IX 43
Pabst Brewing Co. v. C. & N. W. R. Co., 1909
Refund on shipments of beer IV 173
V. , 1910
Refund on shipments of empty beeV packages IV ' 403
u. , 1910
Refund on shipment of beer IV 766
et al. V. C. M. & St. P. R. Co. et al, 1913
Rates on beer, reasonableness of XIII 42
Paff V. C. & N. W. R. Co., 1912
Refund on shipment of lime IX 160
Paine Lbr. Co. et al. v. C. & N. W. R. Co., 1914
Rates on logs, reasonableness of XIV 628
, Ltd., V. C. & N. W. R. Co., 1914
Demurrage charges on shipments of logs XIII 633
Pape V. C. & N. W. R. Co., 1912
Refund on shipment of coke VIII 566
Parfreu v. C. M. <Sc St. P. R. Co. et al, 1910
Refund on shipment of empty cheese boxes and estab-
lishment of joint rates on same IV 450
V. , 1910
Refund on shipment and j oint rates on empty cheese boxes V 551
Cases Reported 635
Volume and Page
Parfrey Mfg. Co. {The A. C.) v. C. M. & St. P. R. Co. et al.,
1912
Refund on shipment of cheese boxes IX 517
Passenger rates M. St. P. Sc S. S. M. R. Co., In re Invest.,
1907
Passenger rates, reasonableness of I 540
Paxton Sc Lightbody Co. v. M. R. Co. et al., 1910
Joint and local rates, discrimination in car service V 531
Pelletier Sc Co. v. C. St. P. M. Sc 0. R. Co. et al., 1910
Refund on shipments of lumber V 721
Pennsylvania Coal Sc Supply Co. v. C. M. Sc St. P. R. Co.,
1914
Rates on coal, reasonableness of, and refund XIV 746
Perley Lowe Sc Co. v. W. Sc M. R. Co., 1912
Refund on shipment of piling XI 108
Peshtigo Lbr. Co. v. C. Sc N. W. R. Co., 1914
Rates on logs, reasonableness of and refund XIV 624
v. C. M. Sc St. P. R. Co. et al., 1914
Rates on cedar posts, reasonableness of and refund XIV 188
V. , 1914
Rates on logs, reasonableness of and refund XV 43
V. Wis. Sc M. R. Co. et al., 1914
Rates on cedar posts, reasonableness of and refund XIV 188
V. Wis. N. W. R. Co. et al., 1914
Rates on cedar posts, reasonableness of and refund XIV 188
Philadelphia Sc R. C. Sc I. Co. v. M. St. P. Sc S. S. M. R.
Co., 1912
Refund on shipments of coal VIII 542
Phoenix Wall Paper Mfg. Co. v. M. St. P. Sc S. S. M. R. Co.,
1910
Refund on shipment of print paper VI 182
Pierce v. M. St. P. Sc S. S. M. R. Co. et at., 1914
Rates on lumber, reasonableness of and re fund XIV 754
v. , 1914
Rates on lumber, reasonableness of and refund XV 473
Pietsch Iron Works v. C. Sc N. W. R. Co., 1911
Refund on shipment of structural iron VI 540
Plumb Sc Nelson Co. v. W. C. R. Co., et al., 1906
Joint rates, establishment of I 19
Plymouth Cheese Co. et al. v. M. P. Sc N. R. Co. et al., 1914
Rates on cheese, reasonableness of XV 217
Pounder v. C. Sc N. W. R. Co. et al., 1913
Refund on shipments of lumber XII 219
Price v. C. Sc N. W. R. Co., 1907
Rates on lumber, reasonableness of I 611
V. W. Sc N. R. Co. et al., 1909
Refund on shipment of lumber Ill 467
636 Cases Reported
Volume and Page
IX. RAILROAD CASES.
i. Rates and Refunds.
Pulp Sc Paper Mfrs. Traffic Assn. v. C. & N. W. R. Co., et al.,
1913
Rates on wood, reasonableness of XI 365
— V. , 1914
Rates on wood, reasonableness of XV 66
V. C. M. Sc St. P. R. Co. et at., 1914
Joint rates on pulp wood XIII 735
Pulp & Paper Mfrs. of Wis. v. C. & N. W. R. Co. et al., 1908
Rates on pulp wood, reasonableness of II 168
Pulp Wood, In re Rates on, 1908
Rates on pulp wood, reasonableness of II 168
Pulpwood Co. of Appleton v. M. St. P. & S. S. M. R. Co. et al.,
1910
Refund on shipments of pulp wood VI 175
Pulp Wood Co. v.C. & N. W. R. Co., 1912
Refund on shipment of logs and wood XI 144
V. C. St. P. M. Sc 0. R. Co., 1908
Rates on pulp wood, reasonableness of and refund II 250
Rankin Sc Co. et al. v. C. Sc N. W. R. Co., 1909
Refund on shipment of grain Ill 370
Rates on Agricultural Implements, In re, 1913
Rates on agricultural implements XI 508
Rates on Live Stock, In re Invest., 1907
Rates on live stock, reasonableness of I 778
Reitbrock Land Sc Lbr. Co. v. M. St. P, Sc S. S. M. R. Co.,
1913
Refund on shipment of lumber XI 447
Rhinelander Paper Co. v. C. M. Sc St. P. R. Co. et al, 1911
Refund on shipment of pulp and restoration of j oint
rates VIII 58
— V, M. St. P. Sc S. S. M. R. Co., 1911
Rates on pulp wood, reasonableness of VIII 105
V. , 1912
Refund on shipments of pulp wood IX 111
—V. , 1912
Refund on shipment of pulp wood and establishment of
joint rates IX 127
V. , 1912
Authority of Commission to authorize specific refunds.. ..X 632
V. , 1913
Refund on shipment of wood XI 393
— - V. , 1913
Refund on shipments of car stakes XIII 84
V. , 1914
Rates on wood, reasonableness of and refund .'. XV 171
Cases Reported 637
Volume and Page
Rib Lake Lbr. Co. et al., Meyer v., 1911
Operation of branch line, railroad rates VII 401
Richards v. C. & N. W. R. Co., 1909
Minimum carload weights on sheep Ill 507
Ringle et al. v. C. M. <Sc St. P. R. Co. et al., 1911
Reduction of rates on tile and brick VII . 170
V. , 1911
Joint rates on brick and tile VII 598
Ripon Veneer & Box Wks. v. C. & N. W. R. Co., 1912
Refund on shipment of logs IX 484
Rock County Sugar Co. et al. v. C. M. & St. P. R. Co. et al.,
1906
Rates on sugar beets and beet pulp, reasonableness of I 258
Roddis Lbr. & Veneer Co. v. C. St. P. M. & 0. R. Co., 1911
Refund on shipment of logs VI .571
Rom Co. V. C. M. Sc St. P. R. Co., 1911
Refund on shipment of foundry patterns VIII 325
Rowland S: Son v. C. & N. W. R. Co., 1912
Refund on shipment of brick IX 163
Ruder Brewg. Co. v. C. M. <Sc St. P. R. Co., 1914
Rates on beer, reasonableness of, and refund XIV 508
Ruedebusch v. C. M. <Sc St. P. R. Co., 1913
Refund on shipments of brick, switching rates XII 248
V. , 1914
Rates on brick, reasonableness of and refund ...XIV 92
Runkel, Dadmun & Sullivan v. C. & N. W. R. Co., 1908
Refund on shipment of grain Ill 185
Rusk Box & Furniture Co. v. M. St. P. <Sc S. S. M. R. Co.,
1914
Switching rates on lumber, reasonableness of and refund. XIV 136
Rust-Owen Lbr. Co. v. C. St. P. M. Sz 0. R. Co., 1911
Refund on shipment of logs VII 12
Sandoval Zinc Co. v. M. P. & A^. R. Co., 1906
Rates on lead and zinc ore, reasonableness of I 99
Sawyer Goodman et al. v. C. & N. W. R. Co., 1914
Rates on logs, reasonableness of XIV 628
Schmitt et al. v. C. & S. C. R. Co. et al., 1911
Joint rates, establishmeitt of VI 693
Schneider v. C. M. & St. P. R. Co., 1909
Rates on ice, reasonableness of IV 71
V. S. M. <Sc P. R. Co., 1912
Refund on shipment of posts IX 64
Schreier Co., Konrad, v. C. M. Sc St. P. R. Co. et al, 1910
Joint rates on barley V 668
Schroeder Lbr. Co., John, v. C. & N. W. R. Co. et al., 1914
Rates on lumber, reasonableness of and refund XIV 823
V. M. St. P. <Sc S. S. M. R. Co., 1913
Refund on shipments of lumber XII 701
638 Cases Reported
Volume and Page
IX. RAILROAD CASES.
i. Rates and Refunds.
Schroeder Lbr. Co., John, v. M. St. P. & S. S. M. R. Co., 1914
Rates on logs, reasonableness of and refund XIV 542
Schultz V. C. M. & St. P. R. Co., 1912
Refund on shipments of coal, feed and refuse X 370
Schwartz v. C. M. Sc St. P. R. Co., 1907
Rates on coal, reasonableness of II 75
Schwoegler <k Kelly v. C. M. & St. P. R. Co. et al., 1910
Refund on shipments of stone and establishment of joint
rates ; V 287; 635
Selle & Co. V. C. <k N. W. R. Co. et at., 1914
Rates on excelsior, reasonableness of and refund XIV 225
V. C. St. P. M. & 0. R. Co. et al., 1909
'Refund on shipment of excelsior * Ill 595
V. C. St. P. M. & 0. R. Co. et al, 1914
Rates on excelsior, reasonableness of and refund XIV 225
V. M. St. P. Sc S. S. M. R. Co., 1914
Refund on shipment of excelsior XIII 635
— V. M. St. P. & S. S. M. R. Co., 1914
Rates on excelsior, reasonableness of and refund .XIV 544
SemradBros. & PuschBrwg. Co. u. C. <k N. W. R. Co. et al., 1912
Joint rates on beer, establishment of IX 76
V. , 1913
Refund on shipments of beer and empty beer carriers XII 236
Shawano Lbr. Co. v.. C. Sc N. W. R. Co., 1908
Rates on lumber, reasonableness of II 775
Shaw Lbr. Co., Daniel, v. C. St. P. M. & 0. R. Co., 1908
Rates on logs, reasonableness of and refund ■. II 342
V. , 1909
Refund on shipments of logs IV 319
Sheboygan Pad Co. v. C. <Sc N. W. R. Co., 1912
Rates on excelsior, reasonableness of X 641
Shong <Sc Son v.. S. M. Sc P. R. Co., 1908
Refund on shipments of logs Ill 40
Shultis et al. v. C. M. & St. P. R. Co., 1908
Rates on milk and cream, reasonableness of II 450
V. , 1909
Rates on milk and cream Ill 425
SinaikoBros. v. C. M. & St. P. R. Co., 1910
Switching charge IV 432
V. , 1910
Refund on shipments of scrap iron V 426
Somo River Lbr. Co. v. W. & N. R. Co. et al., 1910
Refund on shipments of lumber i IV 485
Southern Wis. Cheesemen's Prot. Assn. v.. C. M. &^t. P. R.
Co. et al., 1906
Rates on cheese, reasonableness of I 143
Cases Reported 639
Volume and Page
Southern Wis. Sand <Sc Gravel Co. et al. v. C. & N. W. R. Co.,
1912
Switching rates on gravel and sand X 436
V. C. M. & St. P. R. Co., 1913
Rates on sand and gravel and refund on shipments XIII 380
South Milwaukee Fuel & Supply Co. v. C. & N. W. R. Co.,
1911
Refund on shipments of coal, coke, etc VII 1
u. , 1912
Refund on shipments of coal and coke VIII 473
SpragueLbr. Co. v. C. St. P. M. & 0. R. Co., 1910
Refund on shipments of logs V 666
V. , 1914
Rates on logs, reasonableness of and refund XIV 289
Standard Lime & Stone Co. v. C. <Sc N. W. R. Co., 1911
Refund on shipments of lime VII 149
V. C. M. & St. P. R. Co. et al., 1912
Minimum carload weights and refund on shipment IX 228
Stange Co. v. C. M. & St. P. R. Co., 1910
Refund on shipment of logs V 596
D. , 1913
Refund on shipment of logs XI 274; 725
Stange-Ellis Lbr. Co. v. C. M. Sz St. P. R. Co., 1908
Rates on logs, reasonableness of and refund II 773
Stanley, M. & P. R. Co. et al.. Big Four Canning Co., v., 1914
Rates on box shooks, reasonableness of and refund XIV 84
, Oilman Mfg. Co. v., 1913
Refund on shipments of bolts XII 134
, Pierce v., 1914
Rates on lumber, reasonableness of and refund XIV 754
, v., 1914
Rates on lumber, reasonableness of and refund XV 473
, Pulp (Sc Paper Mfrs. Traffic Assn. v., 1914
Joint rates on pulp wood XIII • 735
, v., 1914
Rates on wood, reasonableness of XV 66
, Schneider y., 1912
Refund on shipment of posts IX 64
, Shong Sc Son v., 1908
Refund on shipments of logs Ill 40
Stanz Co. v. M. St. P. <Sc S. S. M. R. Co., 1911
Refund on shipment of cheese..; VI 579
Steven & Jarvis Lbr. Co. v. C. St. P. M. <S: 0. R. Co., 1907
Rates on lumber, reasonableness of and refund II 131
V. , 1909
Refund on shipment of lumber HI 66
V. , 1913
Refund on shipment of lumber XII 131
640 Cases Reported
Volume and Page
IX. RAILROAD CASES.
i. Rates and Refunds.
Stevens v. C. & N. W. R. Co., 1914
Rates on rye, reasonableness of and refund XV 524
Stevens Lbr. Co: v. C. & N. W. R. Co. et al., 1913
Switching rates on lumber, discrimination ..XI 476
Stolte, Dangel & Foss Co. v. C. & N. W. R. Co., 1909
Refund on shipments of eggs Ill 335
Siowell Mfg. & Fdry. Co. v. C. & N. W. R. Co., 1911
Refund on shipment of hardware VIII 316
St reveler v. Maratfion County R. Co., 1907
Rates on logs, reasonableness of; adequacy of train serv-
ice and station facilities I 831
v. , 1907
Carload rates for "jimmy" cars II 64
et al. V. , 1912
Establishment of joint rates X 409
et al. V. , 1913
Division of joint rates XII 170
Sullivan v. M. St. P. & S. S. M. R. Co., 1914
Refund on shipments of wood : XIII 687
Summit Stove Co. v. C. M. & St. P. R. Co., 1913
Switching rates on scrap iron and refund on shipment... XI I 186
Superior Board of Trade et al. v. C. St. P. M. <Sc 0. R. Co., 1907
Rates on coal, reasonableness of I 767
Superior, City of, v. N. P. R. Co., 1907
Refund on shipment of lumber II 126
Superior Crushed Rock Co. v. C. St. P. M. & 0. R. Co., 1910
Refund.on shipment of crushed stone V 449
V. ,1911
Refund on shipment of crushed stone •. "...VI 219
Superior Mfg. Co. v. C. Si. P. M. & 0. R. Co., 1914
Rates on slaked lime, reasonableness of and refund XV 160
Superior Terminal Elevator Co. v. N. P. R. Co., 1910
Switching charges on grain V 598
The A. C. Parfrey Mfg. Co. v. C. M. & St. P. R. Co. et al., 1912
Refund on shipment of cheese boxes IX 517
Tigerion Lbr. Co. et al. v. C. & N. W. R. Co., 1914
Rates on logs, reasonableness of XIV 628
Tinkham v. C. Sc N. W. R. Co. et al., 1909
Refund on shipment of posts IV 329
Torrey Cedar Co. v. C. <Sc N. W. R. Co., 1912
Refund on shipment of poles and posts IX 185
p. , 1912
Concentration rates on poles and posts X 461
Trostel die Sons v. W. C. R. Co., 1908
Rates on tanbark, reasonableness of and refund 11 761
Cases Reported 641
Volume and Page
Trostel & Sons v. W. C. R. Co., 1908
Refund on shipment of tanbark '. Ill 181
Two Rivers Woodenware Co. v. C. & N. W. R. Co., 1909
Refund on shipments of logs and bolts IV 355
Underwood Veneer Co. et al. v. C. & N. W. R. Co., 1914
Rates on logs, reasonableness of XIV 628
u. C. M. & St. P.R. Co., 1915
Rates on saw logs and bolts, reasonableness of and re-
fund XV 645
Uniform Stave & Package Co. v. C. Si. P.M. & 0. R. Co., 1909
Refund on shipments of logs IV 193
Valvoline Oil Co. v. C. & N. W. R. Co. et al., 1908
Transit privileges II 232
V. , 1909
Rehearing on order granting transit privileges Ill 364
Vesper Wood Mfg. Co. v. G. B. & W. R. Co. et al., 1914
Rates on silos, reasonableness of and refund XV 442
Wachsmuth Lbr. Co. v. Bayfield Transfer Ry. Co., 1914
Rates on logs, reasonableness of and minimum weight. ...XIV 253; 601
Waste Lbr. Products, In re Rates on, 1906
Rates on waste lumber products, reasonableness of I 291
Waukesha Lime & Stone Co. v. C. & N. W. R. Co. et al., 1913
Refund on shipments of gravel and crushed stone XIII 368
V. , 1914
Switching and distance rates on wood, reasonableness of XIII 650
V. , 1914
Rates on ground limestone, reasonableness of and refund.. XIV 579
— V. , 1914
Rates, reasonableness of, and refusal to make refund
ordered by Commission XV 479
— V. C. M. Sc St. P. R. Co. et al., 1912
Reduction of rates on crushed stone, gravel and lime IX 87; 347
— V. et al., 1913
Rates on lime, reasonableness of XI 419
— V. et al., 1914
Switching rates, reasonableness of and refund XIII 534
— V. M. St. P. Sc S. S. M. R. Co., 1912
Refund on shipment of stone IX 167
— V. et al., 1913
Switching rates on wood XIII 372
— V. tt al., 1914
Joint raj:es on agricultural limestone XIII 471
— D. et al., 1914
Rates on ground Umestone, reasonableness of and refund.. XIV 718
Waupaca G. B. R. Co., In re Appl., 1908
Division of joint rates on potatoes II 291
et al., Milwaukee Bag Co. v., 1912
Refund on shipment of ba^s IX 182
21
642 Cases Reported
Volume and Page
IX. RAILROAD CASES.
i. Rates and Refunds.
Waupaca G. B. R. Co. et al., Waupaca Sand Sc Gravel Co. v.,
1914
Rates on sand and gravel, reasonableness of XV 482
Waupaca Sand Sz Gravel Co. v. Waupaca G. B. R. Co. et at.,
1914
Rates on sand and gravel, reasonableness of XV 482
Wausau Advancement Assn. v. C. <Sc N. W. R. Co., 1913
Rates on hay, reasonableness of and refund XII 433
D. , 1914
Rates on lumber and wooden boxes, reasonableness of and
refund XIII 772
v. C. M. & St. P. R. Co., 1914
Rates on beer, reasonableness of XIII 527
Wausau Box & Lumber Co. et al., v. C. & A^. W. R. Co., 1909
Rates on lumber, reasonableness of and refund IV 256; 335
V. , 1910
Refund on shipments of lumber IV 459
■ V. , 1914 -
Rates on wooden boxes, reasonableness of and refund.... XI 1 1 698
Wausau Box cfc Lbr.'Co. et al. v. C. M. & St. P. R. Co. et al.,
1909
Concentration rates on rough lumber Ill 605
V. , 1909
Refund on shipments of lumber IV 337
V. , 1910
Refund on shipments of lumber IV 457
V. , 1915
Rates on saw logs and bolts, reasonableness of and refund XV 645
Wausau Paper Mills Co. v. C. M. cfc St. P. R. Co., 1912
Refund on shipment of pulp IX 400
V. , 1913
Refund on shipment of wood XI 417
V. , 1914
Refund on shipments of ground wood pulp XIII 690
Webb Produce Co. v. C. <Sc N. W. R. Co., 1909
Concentration rates on butter and eggs Ill 32; 338
Webster Mfg. Co. v. C. & N. W.R. Co. et al, 1914
Joint rates on logs XIV 703
V. C. St. P. M. <Sc 0. R. Co., 1910
Rates on lumber, reasonableness of V 95
V. N. P. R. Co. et al, 1914
Joint rates on logs, reasonableness of XIV 703
Week Lbr. Co. u. C. M. & St. P. R. Co. et al., 1914
Rates on logs, reasonableness of and refund XV 53
Westboro Lbi;. Co. v. M. St. P. & S. S. M. R. Co., 1913
Refund on shipments of tanbark XIII 378
Cases Reported 643
Volume and Page
Western Elevator Co. v. C. & N. W. R. Co., 1913
Refund from charge exacted for switching cars of coal ...XII 184
Western Ind. Constr. Co. v. C. M. & St. P. R. Co., 1911
Refund on shipment of steel rails VIII 309
Wheeler-Timlin Lbr. Co. v. C. M. & St. P. R. Co., 1911
Refund on shipment of lumber VI 434
White Rock Quarry Co. v. C. & N. W. R. Co., 1914
Refund on shipments of granite blocks XIII 669
Whittet V. C. M. Sc St. P. R. Co. et aL, 1909
Refund on shipments of lumber .' IV 195
V. , 1910
Refund on shipments of cordwood IV 480
Wing & Getts v. C. St. P. M. <Sc 0. R. Co., 1911
Concentration rates established VI 625
Winkler et al. v. C. M. 6c St. P. R. Co., 1908
Rates on milk and cream, reasonableness of II 450
V. , 1909
Rates on milk and cream Ill 425
Wisconsin & M. R. Co. et al, Bartles-Maguire Oil Co. et al. v.
1911
Less than carload rates on petroleum products VI 326
et al.. Green Bay Box Sc Lbr. Co. v., 1909
Refund on shipment of logs /....Ill 362
, Pereley Lowe Sc Co. v., 1912
Refund on shipment of piling: XI 108
et al., Peshtigo Lbr. Co. v., 1914
Rates on cedar posts, reasonableness of and refund XIV * 188
et al.. Pulp Sc Paper Mfrs. Trajffic Assn. v., 1913
Rates on wood, reasonableness of XI 365
, v., 1914
Joint rates on pulp wood XIII 735
-, v., 1914
Rates on wood, reasonableness of XV 66
Wisconsin Sc N. R. Co., Kaufmann Sc Co. v., 1911
Refund on shipment of salt VI 497
et al., Keith Sc Hiles Lbr. Co. v., 1912
Refund on shipment of logs IX 57
et al., M ears-Slay ton Lbr. Co. v., 1911
Refund on shipment of lumber and estabUshment of
joint rates VIII 247
et al. Price v., 1909
Refund on shipments of lumber Ill 467
et al.. Pulp Sc Paper Mfrs. Trajfic Assn. v., 1913
Rates on wood, reasonableness of XI 365
, v., 1914
Joint rates on pulp wood XIII 735
- — , v., 1914
Rates on wood, reasonableness of XV 66
644 Cases Reported
Volume and Page
IX. RAILROAD CASES.
i. Rates and Refunds.
Wisconsin & N. R. Co. ei ai, Somo River Lbr. Co. v., 1910
Refund on shipments of lumber. IV 485
d al. Wis. Fruit Package Co. v., 1910
Refund on shipment of fruit packages V 642
Wisconsin Box Co. ei al. v. C. & N. W. R. Co., 1909..
Rates on lumber, reasonableness of and refund... /r IV 256; 323
V. , 1910 ^
Refund on shipment of lumber IV 405
— — 'et al. V. C. M. & St. P. R. Co. et at., 1909
\ Concentration rates on rough lumber Ill 605
V. , 1909
Refund on shipments of lumber IV 271; 327
V. , 1910
Refund on shipments of lumber IV 768
Wisconsin C. R. Co., Chippewa Lbr. 8c Boom Co. v., 1908
Rates on logs, reasonableness of and refund II 607
• , Cook & Brown Lime Co. v., 1908
Rates on cement, reasonableness of and refund.. II 298
• et al., Crary v., 1909
Minimum carload weights on canned goods Ill 432
, Hodges v., 1906
Refund on shipment of lumber, legality of ...I 300
-, Island Paper Co. v., 1906
Rates on pulp wood, reasonableness of I 234
et al., Kinney et al. v., 1906
Rates on grain, reasonableness of I 124
, Loftus-Hubbard Elevator Co. v., 1906
Minimum weights on hay, reasonableness of I 91
et al., Manitowoc Malting Co. v., 1906
Joint rates on barley, reasonableness of I " 69
, Medford Fruit Package Co. v., 1906
Rates on berry boxes, reasonableness of I 44
, Menasha Paper Co. v., 1908
Refund on shipment of paper II 300
, Menasha Wooden Ware Co. v., 1906
Rates on wood bolts, legality of ante-dated tariff I 108
, , v., 1908
Rates on logs, reasonableness of and refund II 589
, Meyer v., 1911
Operation of branch line and railroad rates VII 401
— — et ai, Nelson-Berry Lbr. Co. v., 1907
Joint rates on slab wood, reasonableness of II 95
, Plumb & Nelson Co. v., 1906
Joint rates, establishment of I 19
et al.. Pulp Sc Paper Mfrs. Trajfic Assn. y., 1913
Rates on wood, reasonableness of XI 365
Cases Reported 645
Volume and Page
Wisconsin C. R. Co. et al.y Tinkham v., 1909
Refund on shipment of posts IV 329
, Trostel Sc Sons v., 1908
Rates on tanbark, reasonableness of and refund II 761
, v., 1908
Refund on shipment of tanbark Ill 181
- et al., Valvoline Oil Co., v., 1908
Transit privileges II 232
-, p., 1909
Rehearing on order granting transit privileges Ill 364
— , Wisconsin Coal Co. v., 1909
Refund on shipment of coal Ill 339
et a/., Wis. Pulp & Paper Mfrs. p., 1911
Group rates on coal VI 436
Wisconsin Clay Mfrs. Assn. v. C. M. & St. P. R. Co. et al., 1914
Establishment of joint rates on tile and on brick and tile. XIII 756
Wisconsin Coal Co. v. W. C. R. Co., 1909
Refund on shipment of coal denied Ill 339
Wisconsin Fruit Package Co. u. W. & N. R. Co. et al, 1910
Refund on shipment of fruit packages ....V 642
Wisconsin Lakes Ice & Cartage Co. v. C. & N. W. R. Co., 1912 -,
Reduction of rates and refund on shipment of ice IX 101
V. , 1912
Refund on shipment of ice XI 62; 171
Wisconsin N. W. R. Co. et al., Peshtigo Lbr. Co. v., 1914
Rates on cedar posts, reasonableness of and refund XIV 188
Wisconsin Pulp Sc Paper Mfrs. v. C. & N. W. R. Co. et at.,
1911
Group rates on coal, reasonableness of VI 436
D. M. St. P. & S. S. M. R. Co., 1911
Refund on shipment of pulp wood VIII 16
Wisconsin Retail Lbr. Dealers' Assn. v. C. & N. W. R. Co.
et al., 1909
Joint rates Ill 471; 589
Wisconsin River Paper 6c Pulp Co. v. C. 6c N. W. R. Co. et al.,
1911
Refund on shipment of wood pulp VIII 64
Wisconsin Sugar Co. et al. v. C. M. 6c St. P. R. Co. et al., 1906
Rates on sugar beets and beet pulp , reasonableness of I 258
V. M. St. P. 6c S. S. M. R. Co. et al., 1915
Rates on sugar beets, reasonableness of and refund XV 650
Wolf V. C. M. 6c St. P. R. Co., 1913
Rates on grain, reasonableness of and refund XIII 375
Wright Lbr. Co. v. C. M. 6c St. P. R. Co. et al., 1909
Refund on shipments of tanbark,... IV 17&
V. , 1910
Refund on shipments of logs..' IV 770
Yawkey-Bissel Lbr. Co. v. C. 6c N. W. R. Co., 1910
Refund on shipment of lumber .VI 21
646 Cases Reported
Volume and Page
IX. RAILROAI> CASES.
i. Rates and Refunds.
Yawkey-Bissel Lhr. Co. v. C. & N. W. R. Co., 1911
Refund on shipments of lumber VI 209
j. Station Facilities.
Abbotsford, Village of, v. M. St. P. <Sc S. S. M. R. Co., 1911
Station facilities and train service VI 619
Abrams Business Men*s Assn. v. C. M. & St. P. R. Co., 1914
Station facilities and train service XIV 780
Acheson v. C. Sc N. W. R. Co., 1913
Station faciUties XII 564
Ahnapee & W. R. Co., Perry, v., 1906
Station facilities I 223
Albright et al. v. C. St. P. M. & 0. R. Co., 1914
Free storage period, extension of XIV 763
American Society of Equity v. C. St. P. M. Sc 0. R. Co., 1914
Station facilities XV 489
Anderton et al. v. C. St. P. M. & 0. R. Co., 1912
Station facilities X 383
et al. V. , 1913
Station facilities and tr^'in service ? XII '506
Andrew et al. p. C. B. & Q. R. Co., 1913
Station facilities, power of Commission to abate nuisances.XI I 567
Antisdel et al. v. C. M. Sc St. P. R. Co., 1912
Station facilities X 404
Ashland, City of, v.M. St. P. Sc S. S. M. R. Co., 1915
Station facilities, use of railroad company's property as
private dock for public convenience XV 816
Bacon v. C. M. Sc St. P. R. Co., 1913
Station facilities XII 366
V. S. M. St P. R. Co., 1908
Station facilities II 253
Blackman et al. v. C. Sc N. W. R. Co., 1912
Station facilities and railroad crossings IX 50
Blaine v. C. M. Sc St. P. R. Co., 1914
Station facilities XV 403
Blaser et al. v. C. Sc N. W. R. Co., 1908
Station facilities II 275
Bottomley et al. v. C. M. Sc St. P. R. Co., 1914
Station facilities, telephone service ; XV 446
Bouk et al. v. C. M. Sc St. P. R. Co., 1914
Station facilities ^. XV 8
Bowker v. M. St. P. Sc S. S. M. R. Co., 1908
Station facilities..... II 514
Bradley v. C. M. Sc St. P. R. Co., 1909
Station facilities IV 136
Cases Reported 647
Volume and Page
Brown et al. v. M. St. P. & S. S. M. R. Co., 1910
Station facilities V 198
Buckman v. C. & N. W. R. Co., 1914
Station facilities, extension of free storage period XV 405
Burlington, Brighton & Wheatland Tel. Co. v. C. & N. W. R.
Co., 1910
Telephone facilities in railroad station.... IV 388
Chicago, & Mil. El. R. Co., City of Kenosha v., 1913
Station facilities, interurban railways XII 257
• , Mahoney v., 1913
Station facilities :.., XI 578
Chicago Sc N. W. R. Co., Acheson v., 1913
Station facilities XII 564
, Blackman et al. v., 1912
Station facilities and railroad crossings IX 50
, Blaser et al. v., 1908
Station facilities '. II 275
, Buckman y., 1914
Station facilities, extension of free storage period XV 405
, Burlington, Brighton <Sc Wheatland Tel. Co. v., 1910
Telephone facilities in railroad station IV 388
, Clintonville, City of, v., 1913
Station facilities XII 679
, Cross et al. v., 1913
Station facilities ■. XIII 421
, Dahle et al. v., 1913
Station facilities XII 369
, Ford v., 1913
Station facilities XIII 418
— , Frederick v., 1914
Station facilities XIII 646
— , Gilbertson et al. v., 1912
Station facilities X 495
- et al.. High et al. v., 1912
Station facilities XI 90
— , Hoffman v., 1913
Station facilities XII 519
-, Judd & Judd et al. v., 1912
Station facilities XI 175
— , Lohrville v., 1912
Station facilities VIII 699
— , Lorenz Sc Lorenz et al. v., 1909
Station facilities IV 161
-, McMillan v., 1914
Station facilities, union station XIII 679
— et al., et al. v., 1914
Station facihties, union station XV 227
— et al., Plymouth, City o/, y., 1911
Station facilities VII 770
648 Cases Reported
" Volume and Page
IX. RAILROAD CASES.
j. Station Facilities.
Chicago <Sc N. W. R. Co., Pukall et al. v., 1913
Station facilities XIII 427
et al., Teasdale v., 1914
Station facilities, union station XIII 679
, Tennie et al. v., 1914
Station facilities ■ .XV 386
, Travelers' Prot. Assn. of America v., 1913
Station facilities and train service i XI 333
, - — v., 1913
Station facilities and train service XII 439
, Wubker, Jr., et al. y., 1914
Station facilities XV 326
Chicago, B. Sc Q. R. Co., Andrew et al. v., 1913
Station facilities, power of Commission to abate nuis-
ances XII 567
, Conklin et al. v., 1913 ,
Station facilities XII 555
, Smith v., 1909
Station facilities Ill 356
Chicago, M. Sc St. P. R. Co., Abrams Business Men's Assn. v.,
1914
Station facilities and train service XIV 780
, Antisdel et al. v., 1912
Station facilities X 404
Bacon v., 1913
Station facilities XII 366
, Blaine v., 1914
Station facilities ; XV 403
, Bottomley et al. v., 1914
Station facilities, telephone service XV 446
, Bouk et al. v., 1914
Station facilities XV 8
, Bradley v., 1909
Station facilities IV 136
• , City of Columbus v., 1912
Station facilities and railroad crossing IX 576
, Croty et al. v., 1912 '
Station facilities IX 274
, Funk v., 1912
Station facilities VIII 582
et al., Frederick v., 1915
Station facilities XV 670
, Gosz v., 1908
Station facilities .' II 344
, Grossman v., 1906
Station facilities I 254
V
Cases Reported 649
Volume and Page
Chicago, M. & St. P. R. Co., Guildner v., 1906
Station facilities and train service I 102
et al.. Hall v., 1910
Station facilities VI 23
et al., v.y 1913
Station facilities XII 111
— , Halves v., 1911
Station facilities , VI 565
— et al. High et al. v., 1912
Station facilities XI 90
— , Homstad et al. v., \^\0
Statiorf facilities VI . 1
— , Horicon Advancement Assn. v., 1914
Station facilities XIV 144
— , Lienemann v., 1907
Station facilities II 88
— et al., Loehr v., 1906
Station facilities I 34
-, McMillan y., 1912
Station facilities X 556
— et at., McMillan et al. v., 1914
Station facilities, union station XV 227
— , McNaight et al. v., 1914
Station facilities, telephone service XV 433
— et al.. New Richmond, City of, v., 1914
Station facilities, union station XIV 556
— et al., Plymouth, City of, v., 1911
Station facilities VII 770
— , Rogers v., 1914
Station facilities XIII 617
-, Rollis v., 1912
Station facilities X 486
— , Sauk City Business Men's Assn. v., 1909
Telephone service Ill 346
— et al.y Storch v., 1911
Station facilities VI 663
— , Strasburg i;., 1911
Station facilities and train service VI 504
— , Sun Prairie, Village of, v., 1914
Station facilities XIV 332
- et al., Teasdale v., 1914
Station facilities, union station XIII 679
- Von Berg et al. v., 1914 •
Station facilities .XIV 553
- v., 1914
Station facilities XV 311
- Wilkins & Wilkins v., 1914
Station facilities and train service XV 18
t
650 Cases Reported
Volume and Page
IX. RAILROAD CASES.
j. Station Facilities.
Chicago, M. Sc St. P. R. Co., Wilson et al. v., 1913
Station facilities XII 696
Chicago, St. P. M. & 0. R. Co., Albright et al. v., 1914
Free storage period, extension of XIV 763
• , American Society of Equity v., 1914
Station facilities XV 489
, Anderson et al. v., 1912
Station facilities X 383
, Christenson et al. v., 1912
Station facilities IX 477
, Commercial Club of Menomonie v., 1914
Station facilities XIV 123
et al., Frederick v., 1915
Station facilities XV 670
, Hope et al. v., 1914
Station facilities XV 47
, Lauder v., 1914
Station facilities, telephone service XV 33
-, Menomonie v., 1912
Station facilities and train service X 478
, Monk v., 1915
Station facilities XV 635
, Pischel v., 1910
Station facilities IV 783
, Pritchard v., 1914
Station facilities , XIII 625
, Sergeant p., 1911 ,
Station facilities •. VIII 285
Christenson et al. v. C. St. P. M. & 0. R. Co., 1912
Station facilities IX 477
Clintonuille, City of, v. C. & N. W. R. Co., 1913
Station facilities XII 679
Columbus, City of, v. C. M. & St. P. R. Co., 1912
Station facilities and railroad crossing IX 576
Commercial Club of Menomonie v. C. St. P. M. & 0. R. Co.,
1914
Station faciUties XIV 123
Conklin et al. v. C. B. & Q. R. Co., 1913
Station facilities XII 555
tross et al. v. C. & N. W. R. Co., 1913
Station facilities XIII 421
Croty et al. v. C. M. & St. P. R. Co., 1912
Station facilities IX 274
Curtiss, Village of, v. M. St. P. <Sc S. S. M. R. Co., 1911
Station facilities and train service VI -655
a
Cases Reported 651
Volume and Page
Dahle et al. v. C. & N. W. R. Co., 1913
Station facilities XII 369
Dennis v. K. G. B. & W. R. Co., 1908
Station facilities II 575
Eastern R. Co. of M. et al.. Peoples' Tel Co. v., 1908
Station facilities, telephone service II 822
Farmers' Land <Sc Cattle Co. v. M. St. P. & S. S. M. R. Co,,
1913
Station facilities XI 318
Ford V. C. & N. W. R. Co., 1913
Station facilities XIII 418
Frederick v. C. <Sc N, W. R. Co., 1914
Station facilities XIII 646
V. C. St. P. M. & 0. R. Co. et al, 1915
Station faciUties XV 670
Funk V. C. M. Sz SL P. R. Co., 1912
Station facilities VIII 582
Gilbertson et al v. C. & N. W. R. Co., 1912
Station facilities X 495
Gosz V. C. M. <Sc St. P. R. Co., 1908
Station facilities II 344
Great Northern R. Co. et al. Peoples' Tel Co. v., 1908
Station facilities, telephone service II 822
, Thorson v., 1913
Station facilities and train service XII 363
Green B. & W. R. Co., Hemmis et al v., 1912
Station facilities X 626
, Ilijf v., 1907
Station facilities, stock scales II 102
Grossman v. C. M. & Si P. R. Co., 1906
Station facihties I 254
Gruber v. M. St. P. & S. S. M. R. Co., 1906
Station facihties I 53
Guildner v. C. M. & Si P. R. Co., 1906
Station facilities and train service I 102
Hall V. C. M. <Sc St. P. R. Co. et al, 1910
Station facilities VI 23
V. , 1913
Station facilities XII 111
V. M. St. P. & S. S. M. R. Co., 1910
Station facilities VI 23
Harms et al v. M. Si P. & S. S. M. R. Co., 1913
Station facilities XII 552
Hawes v. C. M. & SI P. R. Co., 1911
Station faciUties VI 565
Heaverin u. M. Si P. Sc S. S. M. R. Co., 1911
Station facilities VI 526
Hemmis et al v. G. B. <k W. R. Co., 1912
Station facihties X 626
652 Cases Reported
Volume and Page
IX. RAILROAD CASES.
j. Station Facilities.
High et al. v. C. & N. W. R. Co. et ai, 1912
Station facilities XI 90
Hoffman v. C. & N. W. R. Co., 1913
Station facilities XII 519
Homstad et al. v. C. M. & St. P. R. Co., 1910
Station facilities VI 1
Hope et al. v. C. St. P. M. & 0. R. Co., 1914
Station facilities XV 47
Horicon Advancement Assn. v. C. M. Sc St. P. R. Co., 1914
pi Station facilities XIV 144
Uiff V. G. B. Sc W. R. Co., 1907
Station facilities, stock scales II 102
Jenks et al. v. M. St. P. Sc S. S. M. R. Co., 1914
Station facilities XV 465
Judd & Judd et al. v. C. & N. W. R. Co., 1912
Station facilities XI 175
Kenosha, City of, v. Chi. & Milw. EL R. Co., 1913
Station facilities, interurban railways XII 257
Keup et al. v. M. St. P. <Sc S. S. M. R. Co., 1914
Station facilities and train service XV 459
Kewaunee, G. B. Sc W. R. Co., Dennis v., 1908
Station facilities II 575
Krueger v. W. C. R. Co., 1906
Station facilities and passenger rates I 285
Larson v. M. St. P. Sc S. S. M. R. Co., 1912
Station facilities X 430
Lauder v. C. St. P. M. Sc 0. R. Co., 1914
Station facilities, telephone service XV 33
Laursen et al. v. M. St. P. Sc S. S. M. R. Co., 1913
Station facilities and train service ,...XI 627
Lienemann v. C. M. Sc St. P. R. Co., 1907
Station facilities II 88
Loehr v. C. M. Sc St. P. R. Co. et al., 1906
Station facilities I 34
Lohrville, Village of, v. C. Sc N. W. R. Co., 1912
Station facilities VIII 699
Lorenz Sc Lorenz et al. v. C. Sc N. W. R. Co., 1909
Station facilities ! IV 161
Mahoney v. C. Sc M. El. R. Co., 1913
Station facilities .....XI 578
Marathon County R. Co., Streveler v., 1907
Station facilities and train service I 831
Maurer v. M. Si. P. Sc S. S. M. R. Co., 1911
Station facilities ::: VIII 301
McKee et, al. v. M. St. P. Sc S. S. M. R. Co. et al., 1912
Station facilities IX 342
Cases Reported 653
Volume and Page
McMillan v. C. & N. W. R. Co., 1914
Station facilities, union station XIII 679
et al. V. C. Sz N. W. R. Co. et al., 1914
Station facilities, union station XV 227
u. C. M. & St. P. R. Co., 1912
Station facilities X 556
McNaight et al. v. C. M. & St. P. R. Co., 1914
Station facilities, telephone service XV 433
Menomonie v. C. St. P. M. & 0. R. Co., 1912
Station facilities and train service X 478
Milan Store Co. v. M. Si. P. & S. S. M. R. Co., 1912
Station facilities X 399
Milwaukee L. H. Sc Tr. Co. et al., Waukesha v., 1913
Station facilities XIII 89
Minneapolis St. P. Sz S. S. M. R. Co., Village of Abbotsford
v., 1911
Station facilities and train service.... VI 619
, Andcrton et al. v., 1913 ^
Station facilities, and train service XII 506
, Ashland, City o/, i;., 1915
Station facilities, use of railway company's private dock
for public convenience XV 816
, Bowker v., 1908
Station facilities II 514
, Brown et al. v., 1910
Station facilities V 198
, Curtiss, Village of , v., 1911
Station facilities and train service VI 655
, Farmers* Land Sz Cattle Co. v., 1913
Station facilities XI 318
, G ruber v., 1906
Station facilities I 53
, Hall v., 1910
Station facilities VI 23
et al., v., 1913
Station facilities XII 111
, Harms et al. v., 1913
Station facilities XII 552
, Heaverin v., 1911
Station facilities VI 526
, Jenks et al. v., 191A
Station facilities XV 465
, Keup et al. v., 1914
Station facilities and train service XV 459
, Larson v., 1912
Station facilities X 430
, LauTsen et al. v., 1913
Station facilities and train service XI 627
656 Cases Reported
Volume 9nd Page
IX. RAILROAD CASES.
j. Station Facilities.
Travelers' Prot. Assn. of America v. C. & N. W. R. Co., 1913
Station facilities and train service XII 439
Van Epps v. M. St. P. & S. S. M. R. Co., 1913
Station facilities and train service XII 54
Von Berg et aL v. C. M. <k St. P. R. Co., 1914
Station facilities '. XIV 553
V. , 1914
Station facilities XV 311
Waukesha v. T. M. E. R. & L. Co. et aL, 1913
Station facilities... • XIII 89
Whiteis et al. v. M. St. P. & S. S. M. R. Co., 1914
Station facilities '. XIV 340
Wilkins & Wilkins v. C. M. & St. P. R. Co., 1914
Station facilities and train service XV 18
Wilson et al. v. C. M. & St. P. R. Co., 1913
)i* Station facilfties XII 696
Winchester et al. v.. M. St. P. & S. S. M. R. Co., 1911
Station facilities ;.... VIII 305
Wisconsin C. R. Co., Krueger v., 1906
Station facilities and passenger rates I 285
et al., Loehr v., 1906
Station facilities I 34
, Pullen u., 1906
Station facilities I 27; 60
Wubker Jr., et al. v. C. & N. W. R. Co., 1914
Station facilities XV 326
Yates et al. V. M. St. P. <Sc S. S. M. R. Co., 1911
Station faculties ; VIII 305
Ziesenis et al. v. M. St. P. & S. S. M. R. Co., 1915
Station facilities ...XV 585
k. Switch Connections.
Allen Lbr. Co. v. C. M. <Sc St. P. R. Co., 1910
Demurrage charges and terminal facilities VI 14
Brink v. C. B. <Sc Q. R. Co., 1907
Spur track II 79
Chicago <k N. W. R. Co., Clear Ice Co. v., 1910
Spur track IV 426
, Eden Independent Lime & Stone Co. v., 1909
Spur track IV 233
, v.. Union Lime Co. et al., Interveners, 1910
Spur track: IV 788
, v., 1910
Spur track extension V 110
, v., 1910
Spur track V 727
Cases Reported 657
Volume and Page
Chicago cfc N. W. R. Co., Eden Independent LimeSc Stone Co.,
v., 1911
Spur track VII 140
, Jacobson y., 1910
S\ntch track V 295
, Jefferson Ice Co. v., 1908
Spur track II 431
, Knutsen v., 1914
Spur track XIII 615
, Madison G. & El. Co. v., 1913
Spur track XIII 409
, Plowright Sc Menzies p., 1908
Switching service II 553
-, Stresen-Reuter v., 1912
Nuisance due to switching IX 394
et al., Teasdale v., 1912
Track connections and switching charges IX 66
, Thomas v., 1907
Sidetrack I 716
, Weeks Lbr. Co. v., 1914
Spur track XIV 114
et al.. West Salem Canning Co. et al. v., 1914
Track connections XV 254
Chicago, B. <Sc Q. R. Co., Brink v., 1907
Spur track II 79
Chicago, M. Sc St. P. R. Co., Allen Lbr. Co. v., 1910
Demurrage charges and terminal facilities VI 14
, Clark v., 1907
Team track I 590; 733
, Farmers' Store Co. v., 1908
Spur track Ill 42
et al., Gratiot et al. v., 1914
Track connection XV 421
, Homstad v., 1907
Sidetrack ; II 66
, Middleton Sand <Sc Concrete Co., v., 1914
Spur track XV 306
, Oconto Brewing Co. v., 1911
Spur track VIII 67
, P/ie/ps i;., 1911
Spur track VI 556
, Savage et al. v., 1912
Sidetrack X 442
— — , Sinaiko Bros, v., 1910
Switching charge IV 432
et al., Teasdale p., 1912
Track connections and switching charges IX 66
, Thorne v., 1912
Spur track IX 156
656 Cases Reported
Volume and Page
IX. RAILROAD CASES.
j. Station Facilities.
Travelers' Proi. Assn. of America v. C. & N. W. R. Co., 1913
Station facilities and train service XII 439
Van Epps v. M. St. P. & S. S. M. R. Co., 1913
Station facilities and train service XII 54
Von Berg et al. v. C. M. <Sc St. P. R. Co., 1914
Station facilities '. XIV 553
V. , 1914
Station facilities XV 311
Waukesha v. T. M. E. R. & L. Co. et al., 1913
Station facilities....*. XIII 89
Whiteis et al. v. M. St. P. & S. S. M. R. Co., 1914
Station facilities ■. XIV 340
Wilkins & Wilkins v. C. M. & St. P. R. Co., 1914
Station facilities and train service XV 18
Wilson et al. v. C. M. <Sc St. P. R. Co., 1913
)pv Station facilfties XII 696
Winchester et al. v.. M. St. P. & S. S. M. R. Co., 1911
Station facilities VIII 305
Wisconsin C. R. Co., Krueger v., 1906
Station facilities and passenger rates I 285
et al., Loehr v., 1906
Station facilities I 34
, Pullen v., 1906
Station facilities I 27; 60
Wubker Jr., et al. v. C. <Sc N. W. R. Co., 1914
Station facilities XV 326
Yates et al. v. M. St. P. <Sc S. S. M. R. Co., 1911
Station faculties : VIII 305
Ziesenis et al. v. M. St. P. & S. S. M. R. Co., 1915
Station facilities ...XV 585
k. Switch Connections.
Allen Lbr. Co. v. C. M. Sc St. P. R. Co., 1910
Demurrage charges and terminal facilities VI 14
Brink v. C. B. Sc Q. R. Co., 1907
Spur track II 79
Chicago & N. W. R. Co., Clear Ice Co. v., 1910
Spur track IV 426
, Eden Independent Lime & Stone Co. v., 1909
Spur track IV 233
, u.. Union Lime Co. et al.. Interveners, 1910
Spur track: IV 788
, v., 1910
Spur track extension V 110
, v., 1910
Spur track V 727
Cases Reported 657
Volume and Page
Chicago Sc N. W. R. Co., Eden Independent Lime Sc Stone Co.,
v., 1911
Spur track VII 140
, Jacobson i;., 1910
S\^1tch track V 295
, Jefferson Ice Co. v., 1908
Spur track II 431
, Knutsen v.^ 1914
Spur track XIII 615
, Madison G. & El. Co. v., 1913
Spur track XIII 409
, Plowright & Menzies v., 1908
Switching service II 553
-, Stresen-Reuter v., 1912
Nuisance due to switching IX 394
et at., Teasdale i;., 1912
Track connections and switching charges IX 66
, Thomas v., 1907
Sidetrack I 716
, Weeks Lbr. Co. v., 1914
Spur track XIV 114
et al.. West Salem Canning Co. et al. v., 1914
Track connections XV 254
Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co., Brink v., 1907
Spur track II 79
Chicago, M. Sc St. P. R. Co., Allen Lbr. Co. v., 1910
Demurrage charges and terminal facilities VI 14
, Clark v., 1907
Team track I 590; 733
, Farmers' Store Co. v., 1908
Spur track Ill 42
et al., Gratiot et al. v., 1914
Track connection XV 421
, Homsiad v., 1907
Sidetrack : II 66
, Middleton Sand & Concrete Co., v., 1914
Spur track XV 306
, Oconto Brewing Co. v., 1911
Spur track VIII 67
, Phelps p., 1911
Spur track VI 556
, Savage et al. v., 1912
Sidetrack X 442
— — , Sinaiko Bros, v., 1910
Switching charge IV 432
et al., Teasdale v., 1912
Track connections and switching charges IX 66
, Thorne v., 1912
Spur track IX 156
658 Cases Reported
Volume and Page
IX. RAILROAD CASES.
k. Switch Connections.
Chicago & N. W. R. Co., et al. West Salem Canning Co. et al.
v., 1914
Track connections XV 254
, Vaudreil Realty Co. v.y 1911
Spur track VI 661
Clark V. C. M. & St. P. R. Co., 1907
Switching service I 590; 733
Clear Ice Co. v. C. & N. W. R. Co., 1910
Spur track IV 426
Corey v. M. St. P. <Sc S. S. M. R. Co., 1906
Train service and sidetrack I 191
Doyle V. M. St. P. & S. S. M. R. Co., 1914
Industrial track XIII 620
Duluth-Superior Milling Co. et al. v. N. P. R. Co., 1910
Switching service, whether interstate or intrastate VI 70
Dwight Equity Produce Co. v. M. St. P. & S. S. M. R. Co., 191 1
Spur track VI 501
Eden Independent Lime Sc Stone Co. v. C. <k N. W. R. Co., 1909
Spur track IV 233
V. ,. Union Lime Co. et al.. Interveners, 1910
Spur track IV 788
V. , 1910
Spur track V 110
V. , 1910
Spur track V 727
V. , 1911
Spur track VII 140
Farmers' Store Co. v. C. St.' P. M. & 0. R. Co., 1908
Spur track Ill 42
Gratiot et al. v. I. C. R. Co. et al., 1914
Track connection XV 421
Hickerson Roller Mill Co. v. N. P. R. Co., 1910
Spur track '. IV 395
Homstad v. C. M. & St. P. R. Co., 1907 '
Switch connections, establishment of, sidetrack II 66
Hurst V. N. P. R. Co., 1909
Spur track Ill 283
Illinois C. R. Co. et al., Gratiot et al. v., 1914
Track connection XV 421
Jacobson v. C. Sc N. W. R. Co., 1910
Switch connections; switch track V 295
Jefferson Ice Co. v. C. Sc N. W. R. Co., 1908
Spur track II 431
Knutsen v. C. Sc N. W. R. Co., 1914
Spur track XIII 615
Madison G. Sc El. Co. v. C. Sc N. W. R. Co., 1913
Spur track ,..XIH 409
Cases Reported 659
Volume and Page
Middleton Sand & Concrete Co. v. C. M. & St. P. R. Co., 1914
Spur track XV 306
Moe <Sc Millerman v. M. St. P. & S. S. M. R. Co., 1909
Sidetrack /. IV 117
Minneapolis, St. P. & S. S. M. R. Co., Corey v., 1906
Train service and sidetrack I 191
, Doyle v., 1914
Industrial track XIII 620
, Dwight Equity Produce Co. v., 1911
Spur track VI 501
— , Moe & Millerman v., 1909
Sidetrack IV 117
- Osceola Mill & Elev. Co. v., 1906
Refusal to make connection with sidetrack I 166
- v., 1907
Sidetrack I 608
- v., 1914
Spur track XV 416
-, Theresa Mill <Sc Supply Co. v., 1912
Spur track XI 73
Nast Bros. Lime Sc Stone Co. et al.. Interveners in Eden
Independent Lime Sc Stone Co. v. C. & N. W. R. Co.,
1910
Spur track IV 788
• , V. , 1910
Spur track V 110; 727
Northern Hardwood Lbr. Co. v.'N. P. R. Co., 1907
Spur track II 37
Northern P. R. Co., Duluth Superior Milling Co. et al. v., 1910
Switching service, whether interstate or intrastate VI 70
, Hickerson Roller Mill Co. i;., 1910
Spur track IV 395
, Hurst v., 1909
Spur track Ill 283
, Northern Hardwood Lbr. Co. v., 1907
Spur track , II 37
Oconto Brwg. Co. v. C. M. <k St. P. R. Co., 1911
Spur track VIII 67
Osceola Mill & Elevator Co. v. M. St. P. & S. S. M. R. Co.,
1906
Refusal to make connection with sidetrack I 166
V. , 1907
Sidetrack I 608
V. , 1914
Sidetrack XV 416
Phelps V. C. M. & St. P. R. Co., 1911
Spur track VI 556
Plowright <Sc Menzies v. C. Sc N. W. R. Co., 1908
Switching service II 553
660 Cases Reported
Volume and Page
IX. RAILROAD CASES.
k. Switch Connections.
Savage et al. u. C. M. & St. P. R. Co., 1912
Sidetrack X 442
Stresen-Reuter et at. v. C. <ScN. W. R. Co., 1912
Nuisance due to switching IX 394
Superior Terminal Elev. Co. et al. v. N. P. R. Co., 1910
Switching service, whether interstate or intrastate VI 70
Teasdale v. C. & N. W. R. Co. et al., 1912
Track connections and switching charges IX 66
Theresa Mill 6c Supply Co. v. M. St. P. db S. S. M. R. Co.,
1912
Spur track XI 73
Thomas v.C. & N. W. R. Co., 1907
Sidetrack I 716
Thome v. C. M. & St. P. R. Co., 1912
Spur track IX 156
Union Lime Co. et at.. Interveners in Eden Independent Lime
& Stone Co. v. C. & N. W. R. Co., 1910
Spur track IV ^ 788
, V. , 1910
Spur track >. V 110; 727
Vaudreuil Realty Co. v. C. St. P. M. & 0. R. Co., 1911
Spur track VI 661
Weeks Lbr. Co. u. C. <Sc N. W. R. Co., 1914
Spur track .' XIV 114
West Salem Canning Co. et al. v. C. M. & St. P. R. Co. et at.,
1914
Track connections XV 254
1. Telegraph Service.
In re Invest, of Telegraph Service, 1908
Telegraph service II 263
Telegraph Service, In re Invest., 1908
Telegraph service II 263
m. Tell Tales.
In re Rules for Tell Tales, 1908
Tell tales, rules relating to erection of II 757
Tell Tales, In re Rules for, 1908
Tell tales, rules relating to erection of II 757
n. Train Service.
Abbotsford, Village of, v. M. St. P. Sc S. S. M. R. Co., 1911
Train service and station facilities VI 619
Abrams Business Men's Assn. v. C. M. & St. P. R. Co., 1914
Train service and station faciHties XIV 780
Cases Reported 661
Volume and Page
Adams et al. u. C. B. & Q. R. Co., 1914
Train service XIV 506
A. H. Stange Co. et al., Bolger et al. v., 1913
Operation of railroad line, continuation of XII 223
Anderton et al. v. M. St. P. & S. S. M. R. Co., 1913
Train service and station facilities XII 506
et al. V. , 1914
Train service XIV 247
Barber v. C. St. P. M. & 0. R. Co. et al, 1909
Train service IV 238
Barker v. C. M. & St. P. R. Co., 1910
Train service IV 751
Bartlett et al. v. C. M. d: St. P. R. Co. et al., 1912
Train service IX 389
Birkett v. C. & N. W. R. Co., 1907
Train service.. II 61
Bissel V. C. & N. W. R. Co., 1914
Train service XV 435
Blaine v. C. M. & St. P. R. Co., 1915
Sunday train service XV 652
Boardman v. M. St. P. & S. S. M. R. Co., 1914
Train service XIV 462
Bolger et al. v. C. M. S: St. P. R. Co. et al., 1913
Operation of railroad line, continuation of XII 223
Bowers et al. v. C. M. & St. P. R. Co., 1913
Railroad car service XI 634
Brodhead-New Glarus Branch C. M. <Sc St. P. R. Co., In re
Train Service, 1912
Train service IX 389
Burkholder v. C. B. & Q. R. Co., 1908
Train service II 765
Burrill v. I. C. R. Co., 1912
Train schedules IX 319
Bushnell v. C. M. & St. P. R. Co., 1907
Train service 1 532
Calhoun, Milw. Milk and C. Shippers of, v. C. & N. W. R. Co.,
1915
Train service XV 638
Callen Jr. et al v. C. M. & St. P. R. Co., 1914
Train service XIII 732
et al. V. C. M. & St. P. R. Co., 1914
Train service XIV 581
Chicago & N. W. R. Co., Birkett v., 1907
Train service II 61
, Bissell v., 1914
Train service XV 435
, Donald v., 1911
Train service VIII 320
662 Cases Reported
Volume and Page
IX. RAILROAD CASES.
n. Train Service.
Chicago Sc N. W. R. Co., Fond du Lac Business Men's
Assn. v.t 1915
Sleeping car service XV 606
, For dice et al. v., 1909-
Train service , Ill 602
, Gilbertson et al. v., 1913
Train service XI 604
, Grube v., 1913
Train service ...XII 74
, Hariu v., 1914
Train service : XV 502
et al., John Hoffman Sc Sons v., 1912
Train service IX 530
y Jefferson Promoter's Club et al. v., 1913
Train service XII 74
, v., 1913
Train service XIII 322
, L. S. Div., In re Invest.^ 1912
Train service X 590
et al., Lentz v., 1911
Train service VI 581
, McFarland v., 1906
Train service I 248
, Milw. Milk Sc Cream Shippers of Calhoun p., 1915
Train service XV 638
et al., Nolan et al. v., 1915
Train service XV 588
Passenger Service, Janesville-Fond duLac, In re, 1913
Train service XII 74
et al., Rogers v., 1912
Train service IX 45
, Schmitt et al. v., 1915
Train service XV 758
, Travelers* Prot. Assn. of America v., 1913
Train service and station facilities XI 333
, v., 1913
Train service and station facilities XII 439
, Webster v., 1912
Train service _ X 500
Chicago, B. Sc Q. R. Co., Adams et al. v., 1914
Train service XIV 506
, Burkholder v., 1908
Train service II 765
, Gentenbein i;., 1914
Train service XIII 525
, Kemp et al. v., 1909
Train service Ill 305
Cases Reported 663
Volume and Page
Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co., Maiden Rock, Village of, v., 1909
Train service IV 311
, Schlosstein v., 1911
Train service VIII 242
, Tate v., 1908
Train service, speed of trains II 348
Chicago, M. & St. P. R. Co., Abrams Business Men's Assn. v.,
1914
Train service and station facilities XIV 780
et al. Barber v., 1909
Train service IV 238
, Barker v., 1910
Train service IV 751
et al., Bartlett et al. v., 1912
Train service IX 389
, Blaine v., 1915
Sunday train service XV 652
et al., Bolger et aL v., 1913
Operation of railroad line, continuation of ...XII 223
, Bowers et al. v., 1913
Car service XI 634
, Bushnell v., 1907
Train service I 532
, Callen Jr. et al. v., 1914
Train service ...XIII 732
, v., 1914
Train service XIV 581
-, Delbridge v., 1907
Train service II 32
, Dyer v., 1908
Train service II 621
— , Guildner v., 1906
Train service and station facilities I 102
— , Hall v., 1906
Train service, hauling of private cars I 118
, Hume et al. v., 1913
Train service XIII 80
et al., John Hoffman & Sons Co. v., 1912
Train service IX 530
et al., v., 1913
Train service XIII 322
, Jones v., 1907
Train service I 615
et al., Knapp v., 1910
Train service V 176
, Kuenzli et al. v., 1913
Train service, milk shipments XII 690
, Laun v., 1910
Train service VI 5
664 Cases Reported
Volume and Page
IX. RAILROAD CASES.
n. Train Service.
Chicago, M. Sc St. P. R. Co. ei al., Leniz v., 1911
Train service VI 581
, Morris et at. v.y 1913
Train service XII 560
, Overmeyer et at. v., 1913
Train service : XI 569
, Sager v., 1907
Train service I 660
, Strasburg v., 1911
Train service and station facilities VI 504
, Tz7usy., 1911
Train service VI 534
, Train Service, Madison and Portage and Points West of
Portage, In re Invest., 1913
Train service XII 560
, Werner et at. v., 1914
Train service... XIV 573
, Wilkins & Wilkins v., 1914
Train service and station facilities : XV 18
, Wis. St. Bd. of Agriculture v., 1914
Train service .XV 110
Chicago, St. P. M. Sc 0. R. Co. et at.. Barber v., 1909
Train service IV 238
, Godard v., 1909
Train service : Ill 578
, Menomonie, City of, v., 1912
Train service and station facilities ,. X 478
et at., Rosen u.\ 1907
Train service I 512
et at., Senty v., 1914
Train service XV 155
, Sieberns et at. v., 1914
Train service '. XIV. 775
, Witding v., 1912..
Train service IX 513
Colfax Produce Co. v. M. St. P. Sc S. S. M. R. Co., 1914
Distribution of cars, and service XIV 86
Coon et at. v. W. C. R. Co. et at., 1907
Train service.. I 724
V, , 1907
Train service II 1
• V. , 1908
Train service II 355
Copper River Land Co. et at.. Rib River Land Co. v., 1907
Train service I 739
Cases Reported 665
Volume and Page
Copper River Land Co. et al.. Rib River Land Co. p., 1910
Operation of branch railroad IV 455
Coreij V. M. St. P. & S. S. M. R. Co., 1906
Train service and switch connections I 191
Curtiss, Village of, v. M. St. P. cS: S. 5. M. R. Co., 1911
Train service and station facilities VI 655
Delbridge v. C. M. & St. P. R. Co., 1907
Train service II 32
Dennis v. K. G.B. <Sc W. R. Co., 1908
Train service Ill 115
Donald v. C. & N. W. R. Co., 1911
Train service VIII 320
Dulufh S.S.&A.R. Co., Farmer v., 1906
Train service I 316
, Hughson v., 1913
Train service ; XIII 406
, et al. v., 1915
Train service XV 599
Dyer v. C. M. & St. P. R. Co., 1908
Train service II 621
Ellman v. I. C. R. Co., 1912
Refrigerator car service IX 240
Farmer v. D. S. S. Sc A. R. Co., 1907
Train service I 316
Feuling v. G. B. <Sc W. R. Co., 1913
Train service XII 116
Fond du Lac Business Men's Assn. v. C. & N. W. R. Co., 1915
Sleeping car service XV 606
Fordice et al. v. C. & N. W. R. Co., 1909
Train service Ill 602
Frost V. W. C. R. Co., 1907
Train service II 92
Ganteribein v. C. B. Sc Q. R. Co., 1914
Train ser\4ce...... XIII 525
Gilbertson et al. v. C. & N. W. R. Co., 1913
Train service XI 604
Godard v. C. St. P. M. & 0. R. Co., 1909
Train service Ill 578
Great N. R. Co., Schmidt v., 1909
Train service IV 121
, Thorson v., 1913
Train service and station facilities XII 363
Green Bay Sc W. R. Co., Feuling v., 1913
Train service XII 116
et al., John Hoffman Sc Sons Co. v., 1912
Train service '. IX 530
, p., 1913
Train service XIII 322
666 Cases Reported
Volume and Page
IX. RAILROAD CASES.
n. Train Service.
Green Bay Sc W. R. Co. et al., Nolan et al. v., 1915
Train service XV 588
, Seymour Business Men's Assn. v., 1912
Sunday train service VIII 524
Grube v. C. & N. W. R. Co., 1913
Train service XII 74
Guildner v. C. M. <Sc Si. P. R. Co., 1906
Train service and station facilities I 102
Hall V. C. M. & St. P. R. Co., 1906
Train service, hauling of private cars I 118
Hariu v. C. & N. W. R. Co., 1914
Train service XV 502
Harris et al. v. I. C. R. Co., 1912
Train service X 512
Hart et al. v. M. St. P. & S. S. M. R. Co., 1911
Diversion of railroad line VII 463
Hayden v. M. St. P. & S. S. M. R. Co., 1913
Train service XIII 390
ffein Sc Francis et al. v. C. M. & St. P. R. Co. et al., 1912
Train service IX 389
Hoffman (John) <fc Sons Co. v. C. M. Sc St. P. R. Co. et al.,
1912
Train service IX 530'
V. , 1913
Train service : XIII 322
Howison et al. u. C. St. P. M. & 0. R. Co., 1914
Train service XIV 775
Hughson v. D. S. S. Sz A. R. Co., 1913
Train service XIII 406
V. , 1915
Train service XV 599
Hume et al. v. C. M. & St. P. R. Co., 1913
Train service XIII 80
niinois C. R. Co., Burrill v., 1912
Train schedules IX 319
, Dodgeville Branch of. In re Invest., 1912
Train service X 572
, Ellman v., 1912
Refrigerator car service IX 240
, Harris et al. v., 1912
Train service X 512
et al., Hein Sc Francis et al. v., 1912
Train service IX 389
, Knapp v., 1910
Train service V 176
Cases Reported 667
Volume and Page
Illinois C. R. Co., Watrud v., 1914
Train service XV 449
, Wright v., 1908
Train service II 279
In re Invest. C. Sc N. W. R. Passenger Service, Janesville-
Fond du Lac, 1913
Train service XII 74
C. M. & St. P. R. Train Service, Madison and Portage
and Points West of Portage, 1913
Train service XII 560
Dodgeville Branch of the I. C. R. Co., 1912
Train service X 572
L. S. Div. of C. & N. W. R. Co., 1912
Train service X 590
In re North Wisconsin Farmers' Assn., 1906
Free transportation of advertising car I 175
In re Train Service Brodhead-New Glarus Branch C. M. &
St. P. R. Co., 1912
Train service IX 389
Interlocking Plants, Rules Governing the Construction, Main-
tenance and Operation of. In re, 1913
Railroad and street railways, train service XII 718
Jefferson Promoters" Club et al. v. C. <Sc N. W. R. Co., 1913
Train service : XII 74
John Hoffman & Sons Co. v. C. M. <Sc St. P. R. Co. et al., 1912
Train Service IX 530
V. , 1913
Train service XIII 322
Jones V. C. M. & St. P. R. Co., 1907
Train service I 615
Kellum V. S. M. & P. R. Co. et al., 1908
Train service Ill 262
Kemp et al. v. C. B. Sz Q. R. Co., 1909
Train service Ill 350
Keup et al. v. M. St. P. Sc S. S. M. R. Co., 1914
Train service and station facilities XV 459
Kewaunee G. B. Sz W. R. Co., Dennis v., 1908
Train service Ill 115
Kissinger v. M. St. P. <k S. S. M. R. Co., 1914
Train service ^ ....* XIII 790
Knapp V. I. C. R. Co. et al., 1910
Train service -. V 176
Knapp Bros, et al. v. C. M. <fc St. P. R. Co. el al., 1912
Train service IX 389
Kuenzli et al. v. C. M. Sc St. P. R. Co., 1913
Train service — milk shipments XII 690
Laun, V. C. M. & St. P. R. Co., 1910
Train service VI 5
668 Cases Reported
Volume and Page
IX. RAILROAD CASES.
n. Train Service.
LauTsen ef al. v. M. St. P. & S. S. M. R. Co., 1913
Train service and station facilities XI ^27
Lentz V. C. M. Sz St. P. R. Co. et al, 1911
Train service VI 581
Leonard et al. v. W. C. R. Co. et al, 1907
Train service I 724
V. , 1907
Train service II 1
V. , 1908
Train service II 355
Liberty v. W. C. R. Co., 1906
Train service I 139
Little V. S. M. & P. R. Co. et al., 1908
Train service Ill 262
Loyal Business Men* s Assn. v. W. C. R. Co., 1907
Train service , I 720
Maiden Rock, Village of, v. C. B. & Q. R. Co., 1909
Train service IV 311
Mattoon R. Co. et al., Paxton & Lighthody Co. v., 1910
Discrimination in car service V 531
Marathon County R. Co., Sireveler v., 1907
Train service and station facilities I 831
, , v., 1907
Train service II . 78
McFarland v. C. Sz N. W. R. Co., 1906
Train service I 248
Menomonie, City of, v. C. St. P. M. & 0. R. Co., 1912
Train service and station facilities X 478
Meyer v. Rib Lake Lbr. Co. et al., 1909
Operation of branc'i railroad... IV 178
u. ,1911
Operation of branch Ime and railroad rates VII 401
Milw. Milk & Cream Shippers of Calhoun v. C. Sc N. W. R.
Co., 1915
Train service XV 638
Mineral Point <Sc N. R. Co., Roethe v., 1913
Train service XI 643
Minneapolis St. P. & S. S. M. R. Co., Abbotsford, Vill. of, v., '
1911
Train service and station facilities VI 619
Anderton et al. v., 1913
Train service and station facilities XII 506
, v., 1914
Train service.... XIV . 247
, Boardman v., 1914
Train service XIV 462
Cases Reported ' 669
Volume and Page
Minneapolis, Si. P. & S. S. M. R. Co., Colfax Produce Co.
v., 1914
Distribution of cars, and service XIV 86
, Corey v., 1906
Train service and switch connections I 191
, Curtiss, Village of, v., 1911
Train service and station facilities VI 655
, Hart et al. v., 1911
Diversion of railroad line VII 463
, Hayden v., 1913
Train service XIII 390
, Kissinger v., 1914
Train service XIII 790
, Keup et al. v., 1914
Train service and station facilities ...XV 459
, Laursen et al. v., 1913
Train service and station facilities XI 627
, Parkhill v., 1912
Train service and railway crossing and station facilities.... XI 153
et al., Rogers v., 1912
Train service XI 45
, Sandquist v., 1912
Train service X 490
, Schoenhofen v., 1914
Train service... XIII 790
et al.y Senty v., 1914
Train service XV 155
, Sparlin i;., 1910
Train service IV 467
, Unity, Village of , v., 1913
Train service, railroad crossing XIII 430
, Van Epps v., 1913
Train service and station facilities XII 54
Morris et al. v. C. M. & St. P. R. Co., 1913
Train service XII 560
Nelson et al. v. N. P. R. Co., 1911
Train service and station facilities VII 764
V. , 1912
Train service VIII 685
Nolan et al. v. C. & N. W. R. Co. et al, 1915
Train service XV 588
Northern P. R. Co., Nelson et al. v., 1911
Train service and station facilities VII 764
, v., 1912
Train service ...VIII 685
North Wisconsin Farmers' Assn., In re, 1906
Free transportation of advertising car I 175
Nye, Lusk & Hudson Co. v. S. M. Sc P. R. Co., 1908
Train service Ill 262
670 Cases Reported
Volume and Page
IX. RAILROAD CASES.
n. Train Service.
Olson et al. v. S. M. Sc P. R. Co. et al, 1908
Train service Ill 262
Overmeyer et al. v. C. M. Sc St. P. R. Co., 1913
Train service XI 569
Parkhill v. M. St. P. & S. S. M. R. Co., 1912
Train service, railroad crossing and station facilities ...XI 153
Paxton Sc Lightbody Co. v. Mattoon R. Co. et al., 1910
Discrimination in car service V 531
Rib Lake Lbr. Co. et al., Meyer v., 1909
Operation of branch railroad ..IV 178
, D., 1911
Operation of branch line and rates VII 401
Rib River Land Co. v. Upham Mfg. Co. et al., 1907
Train service I 739
u. , 1910
Operation of branch railroad .IV 455
Roethe v. Mineral Point Sc N. R. Co., 1913
Train service XI 643
Rogers v. C. Sc N. W. R. Co. et al., 1912
Train service IX 45
et al. u. C. M. Sc St. P. R. Co. et al., 1913
Operation of railroad line, continuation of XII 223
Rosen v. C. St. P. M. Sc 0. R. Co. et al., 1907
Train service I / 512
Rules Governing the Construction, Maintenance and Operation
of Interlocking Plants, In re, 1913
Railroads and street railways XII 718
Sager v. C. M. Sc St. P. R. Co., 1907
Train service I 660
Sandquist v. M. St. P. Sc S. S. M. R. Co., 1912
Train service X 490
Schlosstein v. C. B. Sc Q. R. Co., 1911
Train service •. VIII 242
Schmidt v. G. N. R. Co., 1909
Train service IV 121
Schmitt et al. v. C. Sc N. W. R. Co., 1915
Train service XV 758
Schoenhofen v. M. St. P. Sc S. S. M. R. Co., 1914
Train service XIII 790
Senty v. C. St. P. M. Sc 0. R. Co. et al., 1914
Train service XV 155
Seymour Business Men's Assn. v. G. B. Sc W. R. Co., 1912
Sunday train service VIII 524
Sieberns et al. v. C. St. P. M. Sc 0. R. Co., 1914
Train service XIV 775
Cases Reported "671
Volume and Page
Sparlin v. M. St. P. & S. S. M. R. Co., 1910
Train service IV 467
Stange Co., A. H., et al., Bolger et al. v., 1913
Operation of railroad line, continuation of XII 223
Stanley, M. & P. R. Co. et al., Kellum v., 1908
Train service Ill 262
et al.. Little v., 1908
Train service Ill 262
, Nye, Lusk & Hudson Co. v., 1908
Train service Ill 262
et al., Olson et al. v., 1908
Train service Ill 262
Strasburg v. C. M. & St. P. R. Co., 1911
Train service and station facilities VI 504
St reveler v. Marathon County R. Co., 1907
Train service and station facilities I 831
V. , 1907
Train service II 78
Tate V. C. B. & Q. R. Co., 1908
Train service, speed of trains II 348
Thorson v. G. N. R. Co., 1913
Train service and station facilities XII 363
Titus V. C. M. cfc St. P. R. Co., 1911
Train service VI 534
Travelers* Prot. Assn. of America v. C. & N. W. R. Co., 1913
Train service and station facilities XI 333
V. , 1913
Train service and station facilities XII 439
Unity, Village of, v. M. St. P. 6c S. S. M. R. Co., 1913
Train service and railroad crossing XIII 430
Upham Mfg. Co. et al.. Rib River Land Co. v., 1907
Train service I 739
' , v., 1910
Operation of branch railroad IV 455
Van Epps v. M. St. P. & S. S. M. R. Co., 1913
Train service and station facilities XII 54
Watrud v. I. C. R. Co., 1914
Train service XV 449
Webster v. C. & N. W. R. Co., 1912
Train service X 500
Werner et al. v. C. M. <Sc St. P. R. Co., 1914
Train service XIV 573
Whalen et al. v. C. M. & St. P. R. Co. et al., 1912
Train service IX 389
Wilding v. C. St. P. M. & 0. R. Co., 1912
Train service IX 513
Wilkins & Wilkins v. C. M. <Sc St. P. R. Co., 1914
Train service and station facilities XV 18
672 Cases Reported
\ Volume and Page
IX. RAILROAD CASES.
n. Train Service.
Wisconsin C. R. Co., Frost v., 1907
Train service , II 92
d al.y Kellum v., 1908
Train service « , Ill 262
et al., Leonard et al. v., 1907
Train service I 724
, i;., 1907
Train service II 1
, v., 1908
Train service II 355
, Liberty v., 1906
Train service I 139
et al.. Little v., 1908
Train service Ill 262
, Loyal Business Men's Assn. v., 1907
Train service , I 720
et al., Meyer v., 1909
Operation of branch railroad IV 178
, v., 1911
Operation of branch line and railroad rates '. VII 401
, et al., Olson v., 1908
Train service ...Ill 262
et al.. Rib River Land Co. v., 1907
Train service. I 739
, v., 1910
Operation of branch railroad IV 455
Wis. St. Bd. of Agriculture v. C. M. & St. P. R. Co., 1914
Train service XV 110
Wright v. I. C. R. Co., 1908
Train service ..II 279
o. Transfer Companies.
Chicago & N. W. R. Co., Cohn v., 1912
Discrimination between different transfer companies VIII 569
Cohn V. C. & N. W. R. Co., 1912
Discrimination between different transfer companies VIII 569
p. Warehouses.
American Society of Equity v. C. St. P. M. Sz 0. R. Co., 1913
Warehouse site on railroad right of way XII 557
Chicago, St. P. M. <k 0. R. Co., American Society of Equity v.,
1913
Warehouse site on railroad right of way XII 557
, Roberts Produce Co. v., 1910
Warehouse site on railroad right of way V 207
, Superior Board of Trade v., 1907
Grain elevator, discriminatory leasirig of I 655
Cases Reported 673
Volume and Page
Eastern R. Co. of Minnesota et at., Superior Board of Trade v.,
1907
Grain elevators, discriminatory leasing of I 619
Great N. R. Co. et al., Superior Board of Trade v., 1907
Grain elevators, discriminatory leasing of I 619
Minneapolis, St. P. Sc S. S. M. R. Co., Rust v., 1914
Warehouse site on railroad right of way XIV 251
Northern Pacific R. Co., Superior Board of Trade v., 1907
Grain elevator, construction of I 658
Roberts Produce Co. v. C. St. P. M. & 0. R. Co., 1910
Warehouse site on railroad right of way V 207
Rust V. M. St. P. & S. S. M. R. Co., 1914
Warehouse site on railroad right of way XIV 251
Superior Board of Trade v. C. St. P. M. Sz 0. R. Co., 1907
Grain elevator, discriminatory leasing of I 655
, V. G. N. R. Co. et al., 1907
Grain elevators, discriminatory leasing of I 619
V. N. P. R. Co., 1907
Grain elevator, construction of I 658
STREET RAILWAY CASES, see Electric Railway Cases.
X. TELEPHONE CASES.
a. Directories. d. Physical Connection.
b. Certificate of Public Convenience e. Poles — Removal of,
and Necessity. f. Rates and Service.
c. Extensions.
a. Directories.
Fond du Lac Business Men*s Assn. et al. v. Wisconsin Tel. Co.,
1909
Advertisements in telephone directories... IV ^0
Mauthe Furniture Co. et al. v. Wis. Tel. Co., 1909
Advertisements in telephone directories IV 340
Northern Casket Co. et al. v. Wis. Tel. Co., 1909
Advertisements in telephone directories IV 340
Wisconsin Telephone Co., Fond du Lac Business Men's Assn.
et al v., 1909
Advertisements in telephone directories IV 340
b. Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity.
Addison, Town of, Tel. line in. In re Constr. of, 1914
For construction of telephone line.. XIV 766
Gehl et at.. In re AppL, 1914
For construction of telephone line .-. XIV 766
In re Appl. Gehl et al, 1914
For construction of telephone line XIV 766
Sevastopol Farmers Tel. Co., 1914:
For construction of telephone line XIV 524
22
674 Cases Reported
Volume and Page
X. TELEPHONE CASES.
b. Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity.
In re Constr. of a Tel. Line in Town of Addison, Wash. Co.,
1914
For construction of telephone line XIV 766
Sevastopol Farmers Tel. Co., In re AppL, 1914
For construction of telephone line .' ...XIV 524
c. Extensions.
Barron County Tel. Co., Brooks et al. v., 1914:
Refusal to extend service XV 499
Brooks et at. v. Barron County Tel. Co., 1914
Refusal to extend service XV 499
Chippewa County Tel. Co. in Anson, Town of. In re Proposed
Extension, 1914
Extension of lines XIV 510
Clinton Tel. Co., In re, 1913
Extension of line XIII 166
Cornell Tel. Co., In re Proposed Extension, 1914
Extension of line XIV 814
Eagle Tel. Co. v. State Long Distance Tel. Co., et al., 1914
Physical connection, extension of lines XIII ' 597
Earl Tel. Co. v. Trego Tel. Co., 1914
Extension of line XIV 457
East Valley Tel. Co., In re Proposed Extension, 1914
Extension of line , XIV 802
Ettrick Tel. Co., In re Proposed Extension, 1913
Extension of line XII 744
Fond du Lac Rural Tel. Co., In re, 1914
Extension of line XIII 676
Grange Hall Farmers Tel. Co., In re Proposed Extension, 1914
Extension of line > XV 11
In re Extension Pewaukee-Sussex Tel. Co., 1914
Extension of line XV 57
• of St. Croix Tel. Co., 1914
Extension of line XV 241
In re Invest. Alleged Refusal of Oconto Rural Tel. Co. to
Extend Service, 1914
Refusal to extend service XV 277
Alleged Violation of Law by Lisbon Tel. Co., 1914
, Extension of line XIV 131
In re Proposed Extension Chippewa County Tel. Co. in Town
of Anson, 1914 ,
Extension of lines XIV 510
Clinton Tel. Co., 1913
Extension of line XIII 166
— — Cornell Tel. Co., 1914
Extension of line XIV 814
(
Cases Reported 675
Volume and Page
In re Proposed Extension East Valley Tel. Co., 1914
Extension of line XIV 802
Ettrick Tel. Co., 1913
Extension of line XII 744
Fond du Lac Rural Tel. Co., 1914
Extension of line XIII 676
- Grange Hall Farmers Tel. Co., 1914
Extension of line XV 11
- Mattoon Tel. Co., 1914
Extension of line XIV 329
- Mayville Rural Tel. Co., 1914
Extension of line XIV 402
- Oak Ridge Tel. Co., 1914
Extension of line XV 166
—-Owen Tel. Co., 1914
Extension of line XIII 630
- Random Lake Tel. Co., 1914
Extension of line XIV 757
- St. Croix Tel. Co., 1914
Extension of line XV 241
- West Kewaunee & W. Tel. Co., 1914
Extension of lines .^ XIV 219
- Wis. Tel. Co., i914
Extension of lines .....XIV 396;441;510
In re Refusal Oconto Rural Tel. Co. to Extend Service, 1914
Refusal to extend service XV 277
Johnson et al. v. Lodi Tel. Exch., 1913
Rates and service and extension of lines XI 713
Lisbon Tel. Co., Alleged Violation of Law by. In re Invest.,
1914
Extension of line XIV 131
Lodi Tel. Exch., Johnson et al. v., 1913
Rates and service and extension of lines XI 713
Mattoon Tel. Co., In re Proposed Extension, 1914
Extension of line XIV 329
Mayville Rural Tel. Co., In re Extension, 1914
Extension of line .* XIV 402
Oak Ridge Tel. Co., In re Proposed Extension, 1914
Extension of line XV 166
Oconto Rural Tel. Co., Refusal to Extend Service, In re, 1914
Refusal to extend service ....XV 277
Owen Tel. Co., In re, 1914
Extension of line XIII 630
Pewaukee-Sussex Tel. Co., In re Extension, 1914
Extension of line XV 57
Random Lake Tel. Co., In re Proposed Extension, 1914
Extension of line XIV 757
676 Cases Reported
Volume and Page
X. TELEPHONE CASES.
c. Extensions.
St. Croix Farmers Mut. Tel. Co., Tri-State Tel. Sc Teleg. Co.
v., 1913
Extension of line XIII 437
St. Croix Tel. Co., In re Extension, 1914
Extension of line.. XV 241
State Long Distance Tel. Co. et al.. Eagle Tel. Co. v., 1914
Extension of lines and physical connection XIII , 597
Trego Tel. Co., Earl Tel. Co. v., 1914
Extension of line XIV " 457
Tri-State Tel. & Teleg. Co. v. St. Croix Farmers' Mutual Tel.
Co., 1913
Extension of line .....XIII 437
Western Crawford Co. Farmers' Mut. Tel. Co., In re Appl.,
1914
Checking station, establishment of .....XIV 568
West Kewaunee & W. Tel. Co., In re Proposed Extension,
1914
Extension of lines XIV 219
Wis. Tel. Co. et al. Eagle Tel. Co. v., 1914
Extension of lines and physical connection XIII 597
, In re Proposed Extension, 1914
Extension of lines XIV 396; 441; 510
d. Physical Connection.
Arena & Ridgeway Tel. Co. u. Mazomanie Tel. Co., 1914
Physical connection XV 390
Badger Tel. Co., Hawkins Creek Tel. Co. et al. v., 1914
Physical connection XIV 655
Belmont & Pleasant View Tel. Co. et al. v. White Oak Tel.
Co., 1914
Physical connection and establishment of uniform
service, rates, rules, etc XV 92
et al. V. Wis. Tel. Co. et al. 1914
Physical connection and establishment of uniform
service, rates, rules, etc XV 92
Bergen Tel. Co., In re Appl. for Physical Connection between,
and the Clinton Tel. Co., 1913
Physical connection XIII 249
Boscobel Tel. Co. v. Crawford Co. F. Mut. Tel. Co. et al, 1912
Physical connection and reasonableness of rates XI 32
Clinton 6c Bergen Tel. Cos., In re Physical Conn, between, 1912
Physical connection and toll rates X 598
Clinton Tel Co., In re Appl. for Physical Conn, between, and
the Bergen Tel Co., 1913
Physical connection XIII 249
Cases Reported . 677
Volume and Page
Crawford Co. Farmers* Mut. Tel. Co. et al. Boscobel Tel. Co.
v., 1912
Physical connection and reasonableness of rates XI 32
Curtiss and Withee Tel. Co. v. Owen Tel. Co., 1914
Physical connection ...XIII 538
D. , 1914
Physical connection XIV 419^.
Diamond Grove Tel. Co. u. Mineral Point Tel. Co.y 1914
Physical connection XV 185
Eagle Tel. Co. v. State Long Distance Tel. Co. et al., 1914
Physical connection, extension of lines XIII 597
Ettrick Tel. Co. v. La Crosse Tel. Co., 1913
Physical connection XII 68
Farmers Mut. Tel. Co. of Muscoda et al., Boscobel Tel. Co. v.,
1912
Physical connection and reasonableness of rates XI 32
Farmers' Union Tel. Co. et al. v. Mt. Vernon Tel. Co., 1914
Physical connection XV 286
Fennimore Mut. Tel. Co. et al., Boscobel Tel. Co. v., 1912
Physical connection and reasonableness of rates XI 32
Hawkins Creek Tel. Co. et al. v. Badger Tel. Co., 1914
Physical connection XIV 655
Hickory Grove Farmers* Mut. Tel. Co. et at., Boscobel Tel. Co.
v., 1912
Physical connection and reasonableness of rates XI 32
In re Appl. La Fayette County Tel. Co., 1914
Physical connection and estabUshment of uniform
service, rates, rules, etc XV 92
Limy-Brook Tel Assn., 1912
Physical connection IX 189
of Monroe {A. E.) et al. for Physical Connection between
the Clinton Tel. Co. and the Bergen Tel. Co., 1913
Physical connection XIII 249
In re Mineral Point Tel. Co., 1912
Physical connection and rates IX 285
In re Physical Conn, between Clinton Sc Bergen Tel. Cos, 1912
Physical connection and toll rates X 598
between the Clinton Tel. Co. and the Bergen Tel. Co., 1913
Physical connection XIII 249
Johnson et al. v. Readfield Tel. Co. et al., 1914
Physical connection XIV 102
Kelty Line et al, Boscobel Tel Co. v., 1912
Physical connection and reasonableness of i)ates XI 32
La Crosse Tel Co., Ettrick Tel. Co. v., 1913
Physical connection *....XII 68
et al. Winter v., 1914
Physical connection XV 36
678 Cases Reported
Volume and Page
X. TELEPHONE CASES.
d. Physical Connection.
La Fayette County Tel. Co. et at., Belmont & Pleasant View
Tel. Co. et al. v., 1914
Physical connection, and establishment of uniform serv-
ice rates, rules, etc XV 92
, In re Appl., 1914
Physical connection, and establishment of uniform serv-
ice rates, rules, etc XV 92
Lindsey Farmers Tel. Co. et at.. State Aid Highway Comm. v.,
1914
Physical connection XV 244
Linzy-Brook Tel. Assn., In re AppL, 1912
Physical connection IX 189
Mauston Elec. Service Co.y New Lisbon Mut. Tel. Co. v., 1913
Physical connection XII 213
Mazomanie Tel. Co.y Arena Sc Ridgeway Tel. Co. v., 1914
Physical connection XV 390
McGowan v. Rock County Tel. Co. et al., 1914
Physical connection XIV 529
Mineral Point Tel. Co., Diamond Grove Tel. Co. v., 1914
Physical connection XV 185
, In re AppL, 1912
Physical connection and rates -^. IX 285
Monroe, In re Appl. for Physical Conn, between the Clinton
Tel. Co. and the Bergen Tel. Co., 1913
Physical connection XIII 249
ML Vernon Tel. Co., Farmers' Union Tel. Co. v., 1914
Physical connection , XV 286
New Lisbon Mut. Tel. Co. v. Mauston Elec. Service Co., 1913
Physical connection XII ^ 213
Owen Tel. Co., Curtiss and Withee Tel. Co. v., 1914
Physical connection XIII 538
, v., 1914
Physical connection XIV 419
Peoples Tel. Co. (The) et al., Boscobel Tel. Co. v., 1912
Physical connection and reasonableness of rates XI 32
•
Pleasant Valley Tel. Co. et al., Boscobel Tel. Co. v., 1912
Physical connection and reasonableness of rates XI 32
Readfield Tel. Co. et al., Johnson et al. v., 1914
Physical connection XIV 102
Riverside Park Tel. Co. et al., Boscobel Tel. Co. v., 1912
Physical connection and reasonableness of rates XI 32
Rock County Tel. Co. et al., McGowan v., 1914
Physical connection XIV 529
Rough and Ready Tel. Co. et al., Boscobel Tel. Co. v., 1912
Physical connection and reasonableness of rates XI 32
Cases Reported 679
Volume and Page
State Aid Highway Comm. v. Wis. Tel. Co et al.y 1914
Physical connection XV 244
State Long Distance Tel. Co. et at.. Eagle Tel. Co. v., 1914
Physical connection; extension of lines XIII 597
Tuffley Line et al., Boscobel Tel. Co. v., 1912
Physical connection and reasonableness of rates XI 32
Werley Tel. Co. et al, Boscobel Tel. Co. v., 1912
Physical connection and reasonableness of rates XI 32
Westford Tel. Co. et al. v. Badger Tel. Co., 1914
Physical connection.. XIV 655
White Oak Tel. Co., Belmont & Pleasant View Tel. Co. et al. v.,
1914
Physical connection and establishment of uniform serv-
ice rates, rules, etc XV 92
Winter v. La Crosse Tel. Co. et al., 1913
Physical connection XI 748
u. , 1914
Physical connection. .' XV 36
Wisconsin Tel. Co. et al., Belmont & Pleasant View Tel. Co.
et al. v., 1914
Physical connection and establishment of uniform serv-
ice rates, rules, etc XV 92
et al.. Eagle Tel. Co. v., 1914
Physical connection; extension of lines XIII 597
et al., McGowan v., 1914
Physical connection XIV 529
et al.. State Aid Highway Comm. v., 1914
Physical connection XV 244
) et al.. Winter v., 1913
Physical connection XI 748
, v., 1914
Physical connection XV 36
e. Poles — Removal of.
Burns v. La Crosse Tel. Co., 1911
Removal of telephone and electric poles VI 195
Green Bay, City of. Wis. Tel. Co. v., 1908
Ordinance requiring removal of telephone poles Ill 147
La Crosse, City of. Wis. Tel. Co. y., 1911
Removal of poles VII 435
La Crosse Gas & El. Co. et al., Burns v., 1911
Removal of telephone and electric poles VI 195
Wisconsin Tel. Co. v. City of. Green Bay, 1908
Ordinance requiring removal of telephone poles Ill 147
V. City of La Crosse, 1911
Removal of poles VII 435
680 ■ Cases Reported
Volume and Page
X. TELEPHONE CASES.
f. Rates and Service.
Arena Sz Ridgeway Tel. Co. v. Troy Sc Honey Creek Tel. Co.
et al., 1914
Rates for switching service and use of trunk line XIII 763
V. ,1914
Rates for switching service and use of trunk line XV 315
Argyle Tel. Co., In re Appi, 1911
Telephone rates, increase in VI 617
Ashland Home Tel. Co., In re AppL, 1912
Telephone rates, increase in IX 489
Badger State Tel. Sz Teleg. Co., In re AppL, 1914
- Telephone rates, increase in XIV 407
Badger Teleg. & Tel. Co., In re AppL, 1910
Telephone rates, increase in toll rates .V 300
Badger Tel. Co. of Richland Center, In re, 1908
Telephone service and rates Ill 98
Ball, J. L., In re AppL, 1907
Telephone rates, increase in II 105
Beef River Valley TeL Co., In re AppL, 1913
Telephone rates, increase in XII 126
Berend v. Wis. TeL Co., 1909
Telephone service, regulation requiring deposit as pre-
requisite for service IV 150
Big Hollow TeL Co. et al.. Arena & Ridgeway Tel. Co. v., 1914
Rates for switching service and use of trunk line XIII 763
, v., 1914
Rates for switching service and use of trunk line XV « 315
Black Earth Tel. Co. et al., Fesenfeld & Barber et al. v., 1909
Telephone service Ill 514
. v., 1909
Telephone service IV 111
Bloomer TeL Co., In re AppL, 1909
Telephone rates, increase in IV 259
Bottomley et al. v. C. M. Sz St. P. R. Co., 1914
Telephone facilities in railroad station XV 446
Brodhead TeL Co., AppL of Sec. 1797m-91, In re., 1907
Special contract rates II 113
, In re AppL, 1907 ^
Telephone rates, increase in II 113
, ,1912 .
Telephone rates, increase in IX 383
Brooklyn Tel. Co., In re AppL» 1911
Telephone rates, increase in VI 573
Burlington, Brighton & Wheatland TeL Co. v. C. Sc N. W. R.
Co., 1910
Telephone faciUties in railroad station IV 388
Cases Reported 681
Volume and Page
Cascade Tel. Co., In re AppL, 1914
Telephone rates, increase in XIV 808
Casco & Brussels Tel. Co., In re AppL, 1913
Telephone rates, reasonableness of XI 760
Chicago <& A^. W. R. Co., Burlington, Brighton <Sc Wheatland
Tel. Co. v., 1910
Telephone facilities in railroad station IV 388
Chicago, M. & St. P. R. Co., Bottomley et al. v., 1914
Telephone facihties in railroad station XV 446
, McNaight et al. v., 1914
Telephone facihties in railroad station XV 433
, Sauk City Business Men^s Assn. v., 1909
Telephone facilities in railroad station Ill 346
Chicago, St. P. M. & 0. R. Co., Lauder v., 1914
Telephone facilities in railroad station XV 33
Clark County Tel. Co., In re AppL, 1915
Telephone rates, increase in XV 822
Clinton Tel. Co., Tighe et al. v., 1908
Telephone rates, reasonableness of Ill 117
Coady et al. v. La Crosse Tel. Co., 1915
-Telephone rates, reasonableness of XV 831
Coloma Tel. Co., In re AppL, 1914
Telephone rates, increase in XIV 594
Columbus Advancement Assn. v. Wis. Tel. Co., 1910
Telephone rates and service IV • 414
Connor et al. v. Marsh e/ a/., 1911
Telephone rates, extra charges for long distance connec-
tions VI 589
County Line Tel. Co., In re AppL, 1913
Telephone rates, increase in XII 169
Cumberland TeL Co., In re AppL, 1909
Telephone rates, increase in Ill 576
Davis et aL v. Wis. TeL Co., 1909
Telephone rates and service IV 370
Deerfield TeL Co., In re AppL, 1913
Telephone rates, increase in XII 672
Dodgeville & Wyoming TeL Co. et al.. Arena Sc R. Tel. Co. v.,
1914
Rates for switching service and use of trunk line XIII 763; XV 315
Door County TeL Co. et al.. In re Invest., 1914
Telephone service XV 375
Dorm et aL v. Walworth TeL Co., 1914
Telephone rates, reasonableness of XV 412
Eagle Point, Wis. TeL Co. Toll Station at. In re, 1914
Changing of toll station to rural station XV 454
Eagle TeL Co., Rates Sz Regulations, In re Invest., 1914
Telephone rates, reasonableness of XV 397
, Trego TeL Co. v., 1914
Telephone rates, reasonableness of ..XIV 499
682 Cases Reported
Volume and Page
X. TELEPHONE CASES.
f. Rates and Service.
4
f
East Fond du Lac Co. Tel. Co., In re AppL, 1912
Telephone rates, increase in XI 114
Eastern Ry. Co. of Minn, et al. People's Tel. Co. v., 1908
Telephone facilities in railroad station II 822
Eastern Wis. Tel. Co., In re AppL, 1910
Telephone rates, increase in V 212'
Ebenezer Tel. Co. v. M. L. H. & T. Co., 1915
Interference of high voltage transmission lines XV 619
Elderon Tel. Co., In re Invest., 1913
Telephone service XIII 23
Eleva Farmers Tel. Co., In re AppL, 1911
Telephone rates, increase in VI 211
, 1914
Telephone rates, increase in XIV 586
Ettrick Tel. Co., In re AppL, 1908
Telephone rates, increase in II 358
, 1914 •
Telephone rates, increase in XIV 405
v.La Crosse Tel. Co., 1913
Telephone toll rates .'. XIII 25
V. Western Wis. Tel. Co. et al., 1914
Telefihone toll rates XIV . 180
Evansville Tel. Exch., In re AppL, 1911
Telephone rates and regiilations VI 607; 639
Farmers' Tel. Co. of Beef own. In re AppL, 1914
Telephone rates and service XIII 540
et al. V. Lancaster EL Lt. Co., 1915
Interference of high voltage transmission lines XV 622
Farmers' Tel. Co. of Lancaster et al.. Union Tel. Co. v., 1912
Telephone rates, reasonableness of XI 42
, v., 1913
Telephone rates, reasonableness of XII 140
Farmers' Tel. Exch. of Richland Center, In re AppL, 1912
Telephone rates, increase in IX 369
Farmers' Union Tel. Co., In re, 1913
Telephone service, refusal to furnish XIII 399
Fesenfeld & Barber et al. v. Mazomanie Tel. Co. et al., 1909
Telephone service Ill 514
V. , 1909
Telephone service IV 111
Fox et aL v. Platteville, Rewey <ScEllenboro TeL Co., 1911
Telephone rates, increase in VII 608
Franksville TeL Co., In re AppL, 1910
Telephone rates, increase in IV 437
Free and Reduced Rate Tel. Service, In re, 1908
Free and reduced rate service II 521
Cases Reported 683
Volume and Page
Friendship Tel. Co., Purves et al. v., 1914
flelocation of exchange XV 530
Gilpatrick et al.. National Travelers' Assn. of Amer. v., 1910
Telephone rates, reasonableness of V 678
Glidden Tel. Co., In re AppL, 1914
Telephone rates, increase in XV ' 180
Grant County Tel. Co., In re AppL, 1913
Telephone rates, incrfease in XII 128
Grantman et al. v. Theresa Union Tel. Co., 1915
Telephone service XV 582
Great Northern R. Co. et al. People's Tel Co. v., 1908
Telephone facilities in railroad station II 822
Green et al.. National Travelers' Assn. of Amer. v., 1910
Telephone rates, reasonableness of V 678
V. Oregon Tel Co., 1909
Telephone rates, increase in Ill 534
Greenwood Tel. Co., Howard Sc Sons et al. v., 1914
Telephone service : XV 323
Gross et al v. Wis. Tel Co., 1911
Telephone rates from hotel rooms VI 432
Hoffman et al v. Wausau Tel Co., 1913
Telephone rates and service XI 480
Howard & Sons et al v. Greenwood Tel Co., 1914
Telephone service XV 323
Hubertus Tel Co., Purtell et al y., 1914
Telephone service .- XV 152
In re Appl Argyle Tel Co., 1911
Telephone rates, increase in VI 616
Ashland Home Tel Co., 1912
Telephone rates, increase in IX 489
Badger State Tel & Teleg. Co., 1914
Telephone rates, increase in XIV 407
Badger Teleg. & Tel Co., 1910
Telephone rates, increase in toll rates V 300
Ball, J. L., 1907
Telephone rates, increase in II 105
Beef River Valley Tel Co., 1913
Telephone rates, increase in XII 126
Bloomer Tel Co., 1909
Telephone rates, increase in IV 259
Brodhead Tel Co., 1907
Telephone rates, increase in II 113
■ , 1912
Telephone rates, increase in IX 383
Brooklyn Tel Co., 1911
Telephone rates, increase in VI 573
— — Cascade Tel. Co., 1914
Telephone rates, increase in „ XIV 808
684 Cases Reported
Volume and Page
X. TELEPHONE CASES.
f. Rates and Service.
In re Appl. Casco & Brussels Tel. Co., 1913
Telephone rates, reasonableness of XI 760
Clark County Tel. Co., 1915
Telephone rates, increase in XV 822
Coloma Tel. Co., 1914
Telephone rates, increase in XIV 594
— County Line Tel. Co., 1913
Telephone rates, increase in XII 169
— Cumberland Tel. Co., 1909
Telephone rates, increasein Ill 576
— Deerfield Tel. Co., 1913
Telephone rates, increase in... XII 672
— East Fond du Lac Co. Tel. Co., 1912
Telephone rates, increase in XI 114
— Eastern Wis. Tel. Co., 1910
Telephone rates, increase in V 212
— Eleva Farmers Tel. Co., 1911
Telephone rates, increase in VI 211
, 1914
Telephone rates, increase in XIV 586
— Ettrick Tel. Co., 1908
Telephone rates, increase in II 358
, 1914
Telephone rates, increase in XIV 405
— Euansville Tel Exch., 1911
Telephone rates and regulations VI 607; 639
— Farmers* Tel. Co. of Beetown, 1914
Telephone rates and service ] XIII 540
— of Richland Center, 1912
Telephone rates, increase in ., IX 369
— Franksville Tel. Co., 1910
Telephone rates, increase in IV 437
— Glidden Tel. Co., 1914
Telephone rates, increase in XV 180
— Grant County Tel. Co., 1913
Telephone rates, increase in XII 128
— Interurban Tel. Co., 1910
Telephone rates, increase in VI 187
, 1911
Telephone rates and service VI 647
— La Crosse Tel. Co., 1908
Telephone rates, increase in II 546
— Lone Rock Tel. Co., 1909
Telephone rates, increase in Ill 412
— Marion Sz Northern Tel. Co., 1914
Telephone rates, increase in XV 552
Cases Reported 685
Volume and Page
In re Appl. Marquette Sc Adams County Tel. Co., 1914
Telephone rates, increase in XIV 750
Melville Settlement Tel. Co., 1913
Telephone rates, reasonableness of XI 415
Midway Tel. Co., 1909
Telephone rates, increase in ^ Ill 586
, 1912
Telephone rates, increase in IX 497
— Milton & Milton Jet. Tel. Co., 1911
Telephone rates, increase in VI 542
— Mineral Point Tel. Co., 1912
Telephone rates and physical connection IX 285
,1914
Telephone switching rate, increase in XV 70
, 1914
Telephone rates, increase in XV 182
— Morris Tel. Co., 1911 .
Telephone rates, increase in VII 426
— Mosinee Tel. Co., 1914
Telephone rates, increase in XIV 709
— Muscoda Mut. Tel. Co., 1913
Telephone rates, reasonableness of XI 666
— New Lisbon Mut. Tel. Co., 1914
Telephone rates, readjustment of XV 280
— New Union Tel. Co., 1914
Reapportionment of toll earnings XV 60
— Norwalk Independent Tel. Co., 1914
Telephone rates, increase in XV 222
--OakfieldTel.Co.,19U
Telephone rates, increase in XIII 726
— Oostburg Tel. Co., 1910
Telephone rates, increase in IV 407
— Oregon Tel. Co., 1909
Telephone rates, increase in Ill 534
— Ozaukee-Washington Tel. Co., 1911
Telephone rates, increase in VII 428
— Peoples' Tel. Co. of Dane County, 1908
Telephone rates,, optional toll rate II 518
— Peoples' Tel. Co. of Dane County, 1909
Telephone rates, increase in Ill 452
— Peoples' Tel. Co., 1911
Telephone rates and service... VIII 92
, 1913
Telephone rates, reasonableness of XI 499
— Pewaukee-Sussex Tel. Co., 1909
Telephone rates, increase in Ill 420
, 1911
Telephone rates, increase in VII 465
686 Cases Reported
Volume and Page
X. TELEPHONE CASES.
f. Rates and Service.
In re AppL Platfeville, Rewey & Ellenboro Tel. Co., 1912
Telephone rates, adjustment of X 534
Plymouth Tel. Exch., 1912
Telephone rate, increase in IX / 169
Portage Tel. Co., 1908 ' '
Telephone rates, increase in II 692
Prescott Tel. Exch., 1914
Telephone rates, increase in XIV 701
Random Lake Tel. Co., 1912
Telephone rates, increase in XI 130
Rhinelander Mut. Tel. Co., 1908
Telephone rates, increase in II 427
Ripon United Tel. Co., 1914
Telephone rates, increase in XIV 427
Rockland Tel. Co., 1913
Telephone rates, reasonableness of XI 402
of Sec. 1797m-91, to Brodhead Tel. Co., 1907
Special contract rates II 113
State Long Distance Tel. Co., 1912
Telephone rates, increase in VIII 497
Tomah Elec. & Tel. Co., 1908
Telephone rates, elimination of unjust discriminations.... 1 1 296
■ Tomahawk Lt. Tel. <Sc Improvement Co., 1913
Telephone rates, increase in XIII 340
Trego Tel. Co., 1914
Telephone rates, increase in XIV 499
Troy & Honey Creek Tel. Co., 1911
Telephone rates, increase in VI 549
, , 1914
Telephone rates and service XIV 157
• Viking Tel. Co., 1913
Telephone rates, reasonableness of XI 697
Waatoma S: Mt. Morris Farmers' Tel. Co., 1911
Telephone rates, increase in VI 419
• Western Crawford Co. Farmers' Mut. Tel. Co., 1914
Checking station, establishment of XIV 568
• West Menasha Tel. Co., 1914
Telephone rates, increase in. XV 224
• Wisconsin Tel. Co., 1913
Telephone rates, reasonableness of XII 490
In re Badger Tel. Co. of Richland Center, 1908
Telephone service and rates Ill 98
In re Farmers' Union Tel. Co., 1913
Telephone service, refusal to furnish XIII 399
In re Free and Reduced Rate Tel. Service, 1908
Free and reduced rate service II 521
Cases Reported 687
Volume and Page
In re Invest. Bridged Tel. Service at Princeton, 1914
Rates for bridged telephone service, reasonableness of.... XV 475
Elderon Tel. Co., 1913
Telephone service XIII 23
Larsen Tel. Co., 1913
Telephone service XIII 363
People's Tel. Co. et at. at Fall River, 1914
Telephone service XIV 793
Pulaski Merchants* & Farmers' Tel. Co., 1912
Telephone service X 558
Rates & Regulations of Eagle Tel. Co., 1914 »
Telephone rates, reasonableness of XV 397
Service Door County Tel. Co. et at, 1914
Telephone service XV 375
Service Nehagamon Tel. Co., 1914
Telephone service XV 50
Service over the Tel. Lines Owned and Operated ty Matt
Peffer in Door County, 1914
Telephone service XV 375
Standards for Tel. Service in Wisconsin, 1914
Standards of service XV 1
Tel. Toll Rates, Kingston Tel. Co. et al., 1914
Telephone toll rates and division of tolls XV 288
Tel. Toll Rates, Markesan to Kingston, 1914
Telephone toll rates and division of tolls XV 288
Tel. Toll Rates, Price Tel. Co. et al., 1914
Telephone toll rates and division of tolls XV 288
Wisconsin Tel. Co., 1914
Telephone service, "silent number" telephones XIII 587
et al. at Fall River, 1914
Telephone service XIV 793
In re Oregon Tel. Co., 1909
Telephone rates, increase in Ill 534
In re Platteville, Rewey ScEllenhoro Tel. Co., 1911
Telephone rates, increase in VII 608
In re Valuation Plymouth Tel. Exch., 1912
Telephone rates and valuation IX 169
In re Wisconsin Tel. Co. Toll Station at Eagle Point, 1914
Changing of toll station to a rural station XV 454
Interurban Tel. Co., In re AppL, 1910
Telephone rates, increase in VI 1.87
, , 1911
Telephone rates and service VI • 647
Johnson et al. v. Lodi Tel. Exch., 1913
Telephone rates and service... .'..XI 713
Juneau El. Co. v. New Lisbon Tel. Co., 1911
Telephone rates and service VIII 399
King et al. v. Wis. Tel. Co., 1912
Telephone rates and service X 517
688 Cases Reported
Volume and Page
X. TELEPHONE CASES.
f. Rates and Service.
Kingston Tel. Co. et al, Tel. Toll Rates, In re Invest., 1914
Telephone toll rates and division of tolls XV 288
Knapp et al. v. Matteson Tel. Co., 1912
Telephone rates, reasonableness of XI 180
La Crosse Tel. Co., Coady et al. y., 1915
Telephone rates, reasonableness of XV 831
, Ettrick Tel. Co. v., 1913
Telephone toll rates XIII 25
et al., Ettrick Tel. Co. v., 1914
Telephone toll rates , XIV 180
— , In re AppL, 1908
Telephone rates, increase in II 546
Lancaster El. Lt. Co., Farmers' Tel. Co. et al. v., 1915
Interference of high voltage transmission lines XV 622
Platteville Etc. Tel. Co. et al, v., 1915
Interference of high voltage transmission lines ■. XV 622
Larsen Tel. Co., In re Invest., 1913
Telephone service and rates XIII 363
Lauder V. C. St. P. M. & 0. R. Co., 19U
Telephone facilities in railroad station XV 33
Lemcke, William, In re Refusal of Farmers* Union Tel. to
Furnish Service to, 1913
Telephone service, refusal to furnish XIII 399
Lodi Tel. Exch., Johnson et al. v., 1913
Telephone rates and service XI 713
Lone Rock Tel. Co., In re AppL, 1909
Telephone rates^^ increase in Ill 412
Lorenz et al. v. Wis. Tel. Co., 1908
Telephone service Ill 186
Marion & Northern Tel. Co., In re AppL, 1914
Telephone rates, increase in XV 552
Markesan to Kingston, Tel. Toll Rates, In re Invest., 1914
Telephone toll rates and division of tolls XV 288
Marquette & Adams County Tel. Co., In re AppL, 1914
Telephone rates, increase in XIV 750
Marsh et al., Connor et al. v., 1911
Telephone rates, extra charges for long distance connec- .
tions... VI 589
Matteson Tel. Co., Knapp et al. v., 1912
Telephone rates, reasonableness of XI ^ 180
Mazomanie Tel. Co. et al., Fesenfeld & Barber et al. v., 1909
Telephone service Ill 514
, v., 1909
Telephone service IV 111
McGowan v. Rock County Tel. Co. et al., 1914
Rates for local and toll service, reasonableness of XV 378
Cases Reported 689
Volume and Page
McNaighi et al. v. C. M. & St. P. R. Co., 1914
Telephone facilities in railroad station XV 433
Melville Settlement Tel. Co., In re Appl., 1913
Telephone rates, reasonableness of XI 415
Merrill, City of, & Citizens thereof v. Wis. Tel. Co., 1913
Telephone 'rates, reasonableness of XII 490
Midway Tel. Co., In re Appl, 1909
Telephone rates, increase in Ill 586
, , 1912
Telephone rates, increase in IX 497
Miller et al.. National Travelers* Assn. of Amer. v., 1910
Telephone rates, reasonableness of V 678
Milton <k Milton Jet. Tel. Co., In re Appl., 1911
Telephone rates, increase in VI 542
Milwaukee L. H. & T. Co., Ebenezer Tel. Co., v., 1915
Interference of high voltage transmission lines XV 619
Mineral Point Tel. Co., In re Appl., 1912
Telephone rates and physical connection IX 285
, , 1914
Telephone switching rates, increase in XV 70
, , 1914
Telephone rates, increase in XV 182
Morris Tel. Co., In re Appl., 1911
Telephone rates, increase in ...VII 426
Mosinee Tel. Co., In re Appl., 1914
Telephone rates, increase in XIV 709
Muscoda Mut. Tel. Co., In re Appl., 1913
Telephone rates, reasonableness of XI 666
, Pospichal et al. v., 1915
Telephone service XV 578
National Travelers* Assn. of Amer. v. Wis. Tel. Co. et al., 1910
Telephone rates, reasonableness of V 678
Nebagamon Tel. Co., Service, In re Invest., 1914
Telephone service XV 50
New Lisbon Mut. Tel. Co., In re Appl, 1914
Telephone rates, readjustment of XV 280
New Lisbon Tel. Co., Juneau El. Co., v., 1911
Telephone rates and service VIII 399
New Union Tel. Co., In re Appl., 1914
Reapportionment of toll earnings XV 60
Norwalk Independent Tel. Co., In re Appl., 1914
Telephone rates, increase in XV 222
Oakfield Tel. Co., In re Appl., 1914
Telephone rates, increase in XIII 726
Olson et al. v. Wis. Tel. Co., 1909
Classification in telephone service Ill 440
Oostburg Tel. Co., In re Appl., 1910
Telephone rates, increase in IV 407
690 Cases Reported
Volume and Page
X. TELEPHONE CASES.
f. Rates and Service.
Oregon Tel. Co., Green ei al. v., 1909
Telephone rates, increase in ^ .<.... Ill 534
In re AppL, 1909 *
Telephone rates, increase in Ill 534
Ozaukee-Washington Tel. Co., In re AppL, 1911
Telephone rates, increase in VII 428
Payne et al. v. Wis. Tel. Co., 1909
Telephone rates, reasonableness of IV 1
Peffer, Matt, Service over Tel. Lines owned and operated by, in
Door County, In re Invest., 1914
Telephone service XV 375
People's Tel. Co. v. E. R. Co. of M., et al, 1908
Telephone facilities in railroad station > ...II 822
, In le AppL, 1911
Telephone rates and service ...VIII 92
, , 1913
Telephone rates, reasonableness of XI 499
of Dane County, In re AppL, 1908
Telephone rates, optional toll rates II 518
, — r-, 1909
Telephone rates, increase in Ill 452
et al., at Fall River, In re Invest., 1914
Telephone service XIV 793
et al.. Union TeL Co. v., 1912
Telephone rates, reasonableness of XI 42
— , , 1913
Telephone rates, reasonableness of XII 140
Pewaukee-Sussex Tel. Co., In re AppL, 1909
Telephone rates, increase in Ill 420
.- , , 1911
Telephone rates, increase in... VII 465
Piatt eville, Rewey Sc Ellenboro Tel. Co., Fox et al. v., \^\1 ^
Telephone rates, increase in VII 608
, In re, 1911
Telephone rates, increase in VII 608
, , 1912
Telephone rates, adjustment of X 534
' et al. v. Lancaster El. Lt. Co., 1915
Interference of high voltage transmission hues XV 622
Plymouth Tel. Exch., In re AppL, 1912
Telephone rates, increase in IX 169
Portage Tel. Co., In re AppL, 1908
Telephone rates, increase in II 692
Pospichal et al. v. Muscoda Mut. TeL Co., 1915
Telephone service XV 578
Cases Reported ' 691
Volume and Page
Prescott Tel. Exch., In re AppL, 1914
Telephone rates, increase in XIV 701
Price Tel. Co. et al., Tel. Toll Rates, In re Invest., 1914
Telephone toll rates and division of tolls XV 288
Princeton Bridged Tel. Service, In re Invest., 1914
Rates for bridged telephone service, reasonableness of.... XV 475
Pulaski Merchants* Sz Farmers' Tel. Co., In re Invest., 1912
Telephone service X 558
Purtell et al. v. Huhertus Tel. Co., 1914
Telephone service XV 152
Purves et al. v. Friendship Tel. Co., 1914
Relocation of exchange XV 530
Randolph Bros. Hotel Co. et al.. National Travelers* Assn, of
Amer. v., 1910
Telephone rates, reasonableness of V 678
Random Lake Tel. Co., In re AppL, 1912
Telephone rates, increase in XI * 130
Rhinelander Mut. Tel. Co., In re AppL, 1908
Telephone rates, increase in II 427
Richland Center Farmers' Tel. Exch., In re AppL, 1912
Telephone rates, increase in IX 369
Ripon United Tel. Co., In re AppL, 1914
Telephone rates, increase in XIV 427
Rock County Tel. Co. et al., McGowan v., 1914
Rates for local and toll service, reasonableness of ."XV 378
Rockland TeL Co., In re AppL, 1913
Telephone rates, reasonableness of XI . 402
Sauk City Business Men's Assn. v. C. M. & St. P. R. Co., 1909
Telephone facilities in railroad station Ill 346
Standards for TeL Service in Wis., In re Invest., 1914
Telephone utilities, standards of service XV • 1
State Long Distance TeL Co., In re AppL, 1912
Telephone rates, increase in VIII 497
Theresa Union TeL Co., Grantman et at. v., Idl5
Telephone service XV 582
Tighe et aL v. Clinton TeL Co., 1908
Telephone rates, reasonableness of Ill 117
Tomah EL & TeL Co., In re AppL, 1908
Telephone rates, elimination of unjust discriminations.... 1 1 296
'Tomahawk Lt. Tel. <Sc Improvement Co., In re AppL, 1913
Telephone rates, increase in XIII 340
Trego TeL Co. v. Earl TeL Co., 1914
Telephone rates, increase in XIV 499
, In re AppL, 1914
Telephone rates, increase in XIV 499
Troy & Honey Creek Tel. Co. et al.. Arena & Ridgeway Tel. Co. .
v., 1914
Rates for switching service and use of trunkjine XIII 763
692 ' Cases Reported
Volume and Page
X. TELEPHONE CASES.
f. Rates and Service.
Troy Sc Honey Creek. Tel. Co. et ai. Arena & Ridgeway Tel.
Co. v., 1914
Rates for switching service and use of trunk line XV 315
, In re Apply 1911
Telephone rates, increase in VI 549
, , 1914
Telephone rates and service XIV 157
Union Tel. Co. v. Western Crawford Co. F. Mut. Tel. Co. et al.,
1912
Telephone rates, reasonableness of XI 42
u. , 1913
Telephone rates, reasonableness of XII 140
Upham et at.. National Travelers^ Ass'n of Amer. v., 1910
Telephone rates, reasonableness of ...V 678
Viking Tel. Co., In re AppL, 1913
Telephone rates, reasonableness of XI 697
Walworth Tel. Co., Dorm et al. v., 1914
Telephone rates, reasonableness of XV 412
Wausau Tel. Co., Hoffman et al. v., 1913
Telephone rates and service XI 480
Wautoma & Mt. Morris Farmers' Tel. Co., In re AppL, 1911
Telephone rates, increase in VI 419
Western Crawford Co. Farmers' Mut. Tel. Co. et al.. Union Tel.
Co. v., 1912
Telephone rates, reasonableness of XI 42
, v., 1913
Telephone rates, reasonableness of ...XII 140
Western Wisconsin Tel. Co. et at., Etirick Tel. Co. u., 1914
Telephone toll rates XIV 180
West Menasha Tel. Co., In re AppL, 1914
Telephone rates, increase in XV 224
West Spring Green Line et al.. Arena <Sc R. Tel. Co. v., 1914
Rates for switching service and use of trunk line XV 315
West Spring Line et al.. Arena <& Ridgeway Tel. Co. v., 1914
Rates for switching service and use of trunk hne XIII 763
Wisconsin Tel. Co., Berend v., 1909
Telephone service, regulation requiring deposit as pre-
requisite for service IV 150
, Columbus Advancement Assn. p., 1910
Telephone rates and service IV 414
et al., Connor et al. v., 1911
Telephone rates, extra charges for long distance con-
nections VI 589
, Davis et al. v., 1909
Telephone rates and service IV 370
, Gross et al. v., 1911
Telephone rates from hotel rooms VI 432
Cases Reported 693
Volume and Page
Wisconsin Tel. Co., In re Invest., 1914
Telephone service, "silent number" telephones XIII 587
, King et at. v., 1912
Telephone rates and service X 517
, Lorenz et al. v., 1908
Telephone service Ill 186
zt al., McGowan v., 1914
Rates for local and toll service XV 378
— , City of Merrill & Citizens thereof, v., 1913
Telephone rates, reasonableness of XII 490
— , National Travelers' Assn. of Amer. v., 1910
Telephone rates, reasonableness of V 678
— , Olson et al. v., 1909
Classification in telephone service Ill 440
— , Payne et al. v., 1909
Telephone rates, reasonableness of IV 1
, Toll Station at Eagle Point, In re, 1914
Changing of toll station to a rural station XV 454
XI. TOLL BRIDGE CASES.
Marcus et al. v. Postel & Swingle, 1913
Toll bridge rates, reasonableness of XIII 47
Postel <Sc Swingle, Marcus et al. v., 1913
Toll bridge rates, reasonableness of XIII 47
Sturgeon Bay, City of, v. Sturgeon Bay Bridge Co., 1911
Toll bridge rates and repairs VII 727
Sturgeon Bay Bridge Co., Sturgeon Bay, City of, v., 1911
* Toll bridge rates and repairs VII - 727
XII. WATER UTILITY CASES.
a. Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity.
In re Appl. People's W. Lt. & P. Co., 1911
For construction of water utility VII 579
People's W. Lt. & P. Co., In re Appl, 1911
For construction of water utility VII 579
b. Rates and Service.
Alter et al. v. Board of Water Comm. of Manitowoc, 1912
Water rates and service X 387
V. , 1914
Water rates, ownership of meters and service XIV 690
et al. V. City of Manitowoc, 1914
Water rates, ownership of meters and service XIV 690
Antigo Water Co., Hill et al. v., 1908
Water service II 627
, v., 1909 .
Water rates and service Ill 623
694 ^ Cases Reported
Volume and Page
XII. WATER UTILITY CASES.
b. Rates and Service.
Antigo Water Co., In re Valuation of, 1913
Municipal acquisition of water utility XIII ' 156
Appleton, City of, v. Appleion Water Wks. Co., 1910
Water rates and service V 215
Appleton Water Wks. Co., City of Appleton v., 1910
Water rates and service V 215
In re, 1910
Municipal acquisition of water utility VI 97^
Ashland, City of, v. Ashland Water Co., 1909
Water rates, reasonableness of IV^ 273
A'shland Water Co., City of Ashland v., 1909
Water rates, reasonableness of IV 273
, In re Invest., 1914
Water rates and service ^ XIV 1; 721
Atwood et al. v. City of Lake Mills, 1914
Extension of water mains XIV 210
Bayfield Mun. W. & Lt. Plant, In re Invest., 1913
Electric and water service XI 686
Beaver Dam W. Co., Civic League et al. v., 1912
Water rates and service X 661
, In re Valuation o/, 1913
Municipal acquisition of water utility XIII 169
Beloit, City of, Beloit Water Gas & El. Co. v., 1910
Extension of water mains V 459; 617
V. ,1911
Electric, gas and water rates and service VII 187
, v., 1912
Extension of water mains IX 250
Beloit Water, Gas & El. Co. v. City of Beloit, 1910
Extension of water mains V 459; 617
-, v., 1911
Electric, gas and water rates and service VII 187
v. , 1912
Extension of water mains IX 250
Board of Water Comm. of Manitowoc, Alter et al. v., 1912
Water rates and service X 387
, v., 1914
Water rates, ownership of meters and service XIV 690
Cashton Mun. Lt. Sc W. Comm., In re AppL, 1913
Water rates, increase in XI 410
Caswell et al. v. City W. & Lt. Comm. of Ft. Atkinson, 1913
Electric and water rates XII 260
Chippewa Falls Water Wks. and Lt. Co.y In re Invest., 1910
Electric, gas and water rates V 302
, Cunningham et al. v., 1910
Electric, gas and water rates V 302
Cases Reported 695
^ Volume and Page
City W. Co. of Marinette, City of Marinette v., 1911
Water rates, reasonableness of VIII 334
City Water Co. of Sheboygan, In re, 1909
Municipal acquisition of water utility Ill 371
City Water Wks. Comm., Sheboygan, Roenitz et al. v., 1910
Water rates, reasonableness of V 434
Civic League et al. v. Beaver Dam W. Co., 1912
Water rates and service X 661
Clinton, Village of. In re AppL, 1913
Water rates, increase in XI 496
Columbus W. & Lt. Comm., In re AppL, 1913
Electric and water rates and water service XI 449
Cunningham et al. v. Chippewa Falls Water Works & Lt. Co.,
1910
Electric, gas and water rates V 302
Darlington, City of, Kirwin et al. v., 1910
Water rates and installation of meters VI 26; 408
Darlington EL Lt. & Water Power Co., In re AppL, 1910
Electric rates and service, and water rates V 397
Delavan, City of. In re AppL, 1913
Water rates, increase in XII 148
Dennett et al. v. City of Sheboygan, 1914
Water rates and service XIV 634
Dick et al. v. Madison Water Comm., 1910
Water rates and service V 731
Durand Mun. W. Wks. Plant, In re AppL, 1912
Water meters and services XI 169
Eau Claire, City of. West et aL v., 1912
Water rates, reasonableness of IX 134
Elkhart Lake, VilL of. In re AppL, 1913
Water rates, reasonableness of. XI 690
Elroy Mun. W. & Lt. Plant, Kittleson et al. v., 1914
Water and electric rates XIV 485
Evansville Mun. EL Lt. & W. Plant, In re Invest., 1912
Electric and water rates XI 197
Fennimore Mun. W. & Lt. Plant, In re, 1913
Water rates, increase in XII 194
Fitzgerald et al. v. City of Tomahawk, 1911
Water rates and service VIII 40
Fond du Lac Water Co., In re, 1910
Municipal acquisition of water utility ..V 482; VIII 259
FL Atkinson W. <k Lt Comm., In re AppL, 1913
Electric and water rates XII 260; 729
Green Bay, City of, v. Green Bay W. Co., 1913
Water rates, reasonableness of XI 236
Green Bay Water Co., City of Green Bay v., 1913
Water rates, reasonableness of .' XI 236
, In re AppL, 1914
Water rates, readjustment of XV 84
696 Cases Reported
Volume and Page
XII. WATER UTILITY CASES.
b. Rates and Service.
Green Bay Water Co., In re Invest., 1913
Water rates and service XII 734
Hill et al. v. Antigo Water Co., 1908
Water service II 627
V. , 1909
Water rates and service Ill 623
Hillsboro W. Wks. Co., In re AppL, 1911
Water rates and service. VIII 85
Hudson Water Wks., In re Invest., 1908
Rules and regulations governing meters Ill 138
Hughes et al. v. Watertown Water Wks., 1914
Water rates, reasonableness of XIV 669
Hurley W. Co., Town of Vaughn v., 1914
Water rates and service XIV 291
In re Appl. Cashton Mun. Lt. & W. Conun., 1913
Water rates, increase in XI 410
Clinton, Village of, 1913
Water rates, increase in XI 496
Columbus W. & Lt. Comm., 1913 ^
Electric and water rates and water service XI 449
Darlington El. Lt. & W. Co., 1910
Electric rates and service, and water rates ; V 397
Delavan, City of, 1913
Water rates, increase in XII 148
Durand Mun. W. Wks. Plant, 1912
Water meters and services XI 169
Elkhart Lake, Village of, 1913
Water rates, reasonableness of XI 690
Fennimore Municipal W. & Lt. Plant, 1913
Water rates, increase in XII 194
Ft. Atkinson W. & Lt. Comm., 1913
Electric and water rates XII 260; 729
Green Bay Water Co., 1914
Water rates, readjustment of XV 84
Hillsboro W. Wks., 1911
Water rates and service VIII 85
Jefferson Mun. El. Lt. & W. Plant, 1910
Electric and water rates V • 555
, Kenosha Mun. W. Plant, 1914
Water rates, increase in XV 426
Lake Mills Lt. <Sc W. Comm., 1912
Water and electric utilities, financial management XI 160
Madison City Water Works, 1909
Water rates, readjustment of Ill 299
Manitowoc, City of, as El. & Water Utility, 1914
Electric and water rates, adjustment of XV 212
Cases Reported 697
Volume and Page
In re Appl. Milwaukee, City of, 1911
Uniform accounts VIII 406
, 1912
Water meters, installation of XI 195
Neenah, City of, 1912
Water rates and service XI 119
New Glarus Lt. Sc W. Plant, 1913
Water rates, increase in XI 711
— Oconomowoc Water Dept., 1914
Water rates, minimum charge XIV 394
— Oconto City Water Supply Co., 1910
Regulations as to payment of rates VI 691
,1911
Water rates .'.., VII 497
, 1911
Water rates VIII 388
— Oregon, Village of, 1913
Water rates, increase in XI 548
— Park Falls Mun. Water Wks., 1914
Water rates, adjustment of XV 284
People's W. Lt. Sc P. Co., 1912
Water rates, adjustment of x X 651
Richland Center El. Lt. & W. Plant, 1914
Electric and water rates XIV 590
Sparta, City of, 1913
Water rates, increase and readjustment of XII 532
Viroqua, City of, 1913
Water rates, increase in XI 330
In re Invest. Ashland Water Co., 1914
Water rates and service XIV 1; 721
Bayfield Mun. W. & Lt. Plant, 1913
Electric and water service XI 686
Chippewa Falls Water Wks. & Ltg. Co., 1910
Electric, gas and water rates V 302
Evansville Mun. El. Lt. & W. Plant, 1912 .
Electric and water rates XI 197
Extension of Water Main by Janesville W. Co., 1914
Extension of water main XV 370
Green Bay W. Co., 1913
Water rates and service XII 734
Hudson Water Works, 1908
Rules and regulations governing meters Ill 138
Viola Mun. Water Plant, 1914
Extension of water mains XIII 702
— ■- Waterloo Mun. W. & El. Plant, 1914
Water and electric rates, management XV 534
In re Lake Geneva W, & Lt. Co., 1911
Municipal acquisition of water utility VI 403
698 Cases Reported
Volume and Page
XII. WATER UTILITY CASES.
b. Rates and Service. ^
In re Manitowoc, City of, 1914
Electric and water rates XIV 697
In re Purchase Appleton Water Wks., 1910
Municipal acquisition of water utility VI 97
City Water Co. of Sheboygan, 1909
Municipal acquisition of water utility Ill 371
Fond du Lac Water Co., 1910
Municipal acquisition of water utility V 482
-,1911
Municipal acquisition of water utility VIII 259
Manitowoc Water Wks. Co., 1911
Municipal acquisition of water utility VII 71
,1911
Municipal acquisition of water utility.. VIII 266
Janesville Water Wks. Plant, 1915
Municipal acquisition of water utility XV 674
Oshkosh Water Wks. Co., 1913
Municipal acquisition of water utility XII 602
-Racine Water Co., 1912
Municipal acquisition of water utility...;. X 543
In re Valuation Antigo Water Co., 1913
Municipal acquisition of water utility XIII 156
Beaver Dam Water Co., 1913
Municipal acquisition of water utility XIII 169
Janesville Water Co., 1913 '
Municipal acquisition of water utility XIII 29
Whitewater Water Wks. Co., 1912
Municipal acquisition of water utility X 524
Janesville, City of, v. Janesville W. Co., 1911
Water rates and service VII 628
v. , 1914
' Water rates XV 117
Janesville Water Co., In re Vai, 1913
Municipal acquisition of water utility .....XIII 29
Janesville, City of, v., 1911
Water rates and service VII 628
•, v., 1914
Water rates XV 117
Water Main, In re Extension, 1914
Extension of water main XV 370
, In re Purchase, 1915
Municipal acquisition of water utility XV 674
Jefferson Mun. El. Lt. & W. Plant, In re AppL, 1910
Electric and water rates V 555
Kenosha Mun. W. Plant, In re AppL, 1914
Water rates, increase in XV 426
Cases Reported 699
Volume and Page
Kirwin et al. v. City of Darlington, 1910
Water rates and installation of meters VI 26
V. , 1911
Water rates and installation of meters VI 408
Kittleson et al. v. Elroy Mun. W. & Lt. Plant, 1914
Water and electric rates XIV 485
La Crosse Board' of Water Comm., Torrance et al. v., 1911
Water supply VII 27
Lake Geneva W. Sc Lt. Co., In re, 1911
Municipal acquisition of water utility VI 403
Lake Mills, City of, Atwood et al. p., 1914
Extension of water mains XIV 210
Webber et al. v., 1913
Water service and extension of mains XII 577
Lake Mills Lt. & W. Comm., In re AppL, 1912
Water and electric utilities, financial management .XI 160
Lothrop et al. v. Village of Sharon, 1912
Gas and water rates and installation of meters VIII 479
Madison City Water Wks., In re AppL, 1909
Water rates, readjustment of... Ill 299
Madison, City of, Madison Realty Co. et al. v., 1912
Extension of water mains X 447
Madison Realty Co. et al. v. City of Madison, 1912
Extension of water mains X 447
Madison Water Comm., Dick et al. v., 1910
Water rates and service V 731
Manitowoc, City of. Alter et al. v., 1914
Water rates, ownership of meters and service XIV 690
as El. & Water Utility, In re AppL, 1914
Electric and water rates, adjustment of XV 212
, Markham et a/, y., 1912
Water rates and service X 387
, v., 1914
Water rates, ownership of meters and services* XIV 690
, In re, 1914
Electric and water rates XIV 697
Manitowoc Water Wks. Co., In re, 1911
Municipal acquisition of water utihty VII 71; 266
Marinette, City of, v. City W. Co. of Marinette, 1911
Water rates, reasonableness of VIII 334
Markham et al. v. City of Manitowoc, 1912
Water rates and service X 387
V. , 1914
Water rates, ownership of meters and service XIV 690
Mellen, City of, v. Mellen Water & Lt. Co., 1910
Water service ..V 202
Mellen Water & Lt. Co., City of Mellen v., 1910
Water service V 202
700 Cases Reported
Volume and Page
XII. WATER UTILITY CASES.
b. Rates and Service.
Milwaukee^ City of. In re AppL, 1911
Uniform accounts VlII 406
, ,1912
Water meters, installation of XI 195
Monifort, Village of, Rollins et al. v., 1913
Water rates, reasonableness of XI 278
Neenah, City of. In re AppL, 1912
Water rates and service XI 119
New Glarus Lt. & W. Plant, In re AppL, 1913
Water rates, increase in XI 711
Oconomowoc Water Dept., In re AppL, 1914
Water rates, minimum charge XIV 394
Oconto, City Water Supply Co., In re AppL, 1910
Regulations as to payment of rates ...V 691
, ,1911 . ^
Water rates VII 497
, . 1911
Water rates ...VIII 388
u. City of Oconto, 1912
Location of water meters X 584
Oconto, City of, Oconto City W. Supply Co. v., 1912
Location of water meters ,... X 584
Oregon, Village of. In re AppL, 1913
Water rates, increase in XI 548
Oshkosh W. Wks. Co., In re VaL, 1913
Municipal acquisition of water utility XII 602
Park Falls Mun. W. Wks., In re AppL, 1914
Water rates, adjustment of XV 284
People's W. Lt. & P. Co., In re AppL, 1912
Water rates, adjustment of X 651
Racine W. Co., In re, 1912
Municipal acquisition of water utility X 543
Richland Center EL LL Sz W. Plant, In re AppL, 1914
Electric and water rates XIV 590
Ripon, City of, v. Ripon Light & Water Co. 1910
Electric, gas and water rates and service V 1
Ripon Lt. Sc Water Co., City of Ripon v., 1910
Electric, gas and water rates and service V 1
Roenitz et at. u. City Water Wks. Conun., Sheboygan, 1910
Water rates, reasonableness of V 434
Rollins et aL v. VilL of Montfort, 1913
Water rates, reasonableness of XI 278
Sharon, Village of, Lothrop et aL v., 1912
Gas and water rates and installation of meters VIII 479
V. United H. LL & P. Co., 1913
Water rates and service XIII 1
Cases Reported * 701
Volume and Page
Sheboygan, City of, Dennett et al. »., 1914
Water rates and service XIV 634
Sheboygan, City Wafer Co., In re, 1909
Municipal acquisition of water utility Ill 371
Sheboygan City Water Wks. Comm., Roenitz et al. v., 1910
Water rates, reasonableness of V 434
Sparta, City of. In re AppL, 1913
Water rates, increase in XII 532
Stevens Point, City of, v. Stevens Point Water Co., 1911
Water rates and service VI 458
Stevens Point Water Co., City of Stevens Point v., 1911 ,
Water rates and service VI 458
Superior Comm'l Club et al. v. Superior W. Lt. & P. Co., 1912
Electric, gas and water rates X 704
Superior W. Lt. & P. Co., Superior Comm'l Club et al. v., 1912
Electric, gas and water rates X 704
Tomahawk, City of, Fitzgerald et al. v., 1911
Water rates and service VIII 40
Torrance et al. v. La Crosse Board of W. Comm., 1911
Water supply VII 27
United H. Li. <Sc P. Co., Village of Sharon v., 1913 .
Water rates and service XIII 1
Vaughn, Town of, v. Hurley W. Co., 1914
Water rates and service XIV 291
Viola Mun. Water Plant, In re Invest., 1914
Extension of water mains XIII 702
Viroqua, City of. In re AppL, 1913
Water rates, increase in XI 330
Washburn, City of, v. Washburn W. Wks. Co., 1910
Water rates and installation of meters VI 74
Washburn W. Wks. Co., City of Washburn v., 1910
Water rates and installation of meters VI 74
Waterloo Mun. W. Sc El. Plant, In re Invest., 1914
Water and electric rates, management XV 534
Watertown Water Wks., Hughes ef a/, i;., 1914
Water rates, reasonableness of XIV 669
Webber et al. v. City of Lake Mills, 1913
Water service and extension of mains XII 577
West et al. v. City of Eau Claire, 1912
Water rates, reasonableness of IX 134
" Whitewater W. Wks. Co., In re Val., 1912
Municipal acquisition of water utility X 524
XIII. WATER POWER CASES.
Apple River W. P. Franchise for. In re AppL, 1915
Franchise to construct water power dam XV 712
Arnquist et al., In re AppL, 1915
Franchise to construct water power dam XV 712
702 Cases Reported
Volume and Page
XIII. WATER POWER CASES.
Certain Freeholders, Taxpayers and Residents of Dodge Co. v.
McWilliams, 1914
Navigable waters, regulation of level and flow of water.. XIII 603
Darlington EL Lt. & P. Co., Law et at. v., 1912
Dams, regulation of level and flow of water X 380
Dodge Co., Certain Freeholders, Taxpayers and Residents of, v.
McWilliams, 1914
Navigable, water, regulation of level and flow of water. ... XIII 603
Freeholders, Taxpayers and Residents of Dodge Co. v. McWil-
liams, 1914 •
Navigable waters, regulation of level and flow of water.. XIII 603
In re Appl. Arnquist et at., 1915
Franchise to construct water power dam XV 712
■ for W. P. Franchise on Apple River, 1915
Franchise to construct water power dam XV 712
Long Lake Impr. Assn., 1915
Level and flow of water XV 708
■ New Richmond Roller Mills Co., 1915
Franchise to construct water power dam XV 712
Wisconsin River Power Co., 1914
Regulation of height of dam XV 471
In re High Water Marie on. Rest Lake Reservoir, 1914
Regulation of level and flow of water XV 438
In re Obstructions in the Rock River at Janesville, 1914
Navigable waters, obstructions in stream XIV 190
In re Petition Paramount P. & Realty Co., 1914
Navigable waters, obstructions in stream XIV 474
In re Regulation of Flow of Rock River in Mayville, 1915
Level and flow of water XV 698
In re Regulation Level of Water on Long Lake, 1915
Level and flow of water XV 708
In re Request of Paramount P. <Sc Realty Co., 1912
Repairs on dam IX 331
Law et at. v. Darlington El. Lt. & P. Co., 1912
Dams, regulation of level and flow of water X 380
Long Lake Impr. Assn., In re Appl., 1915
Level and flow of water ^ XV 708
Long Lake, Level of Water on. In re Reg., 1915
Level and flow of water XV 708
Mayville, Flow of Rock River in, In re Reg., 1915
Level and flow of water XV 698
McWilliams, Certain Freeholders, Taxpayers and Residents of
Dodge Co. v., 1914
Navigable waters, regulation of level and flow of water.. XI 1 1 603
New Richmond Roller Mills Co., In re Appl., 1915
Franchise to construct water power dam XV 712
Cases Reported 703
Volume and Page
Paramount P. & Realty Co., In re Petition of, 1914
Navigable waters, obstructions in stream XIV 474
, In re Request of, 1912
Repairs on dam IX 331
Residents, Freeholders and Taxpayers of Dodge Co. v. McWil-
liams, 1914
Navigable waters, regulation of level and flow of water.. XI 1 1 603
Rent Lake Reservoir, High Water Mark on. In re, 1914
Regulation of level and flow of water XV 4,38
Rock River at Janesville, In re Obstructions in, 1914
Navigable waters, obstructions in stream XIV 190
Rock River in Mayville, Flow of. In re Reg., 1915
Level and flow of water XV 698
Taxpayers, Freeholders and Residents of Dodge Co. v. McWil-
liams, 1914
Navigable waters, regulation of level and flow of water.. XIII 603
Wisconsin River Power Co., In re AppL, 1914
Regulation of height of dam XV 471
r
LAWS CITED
TABLE OF LAWS CITED.
Vol. and Pages
Interstate Commerce Act.
Sec. 1 1,7,14
Sec. 2 1, 8, 14, 212
213, 214, 221, 304
Sec. 3 1, 9, 14, 304; II, 245
Sec. 6 1, 8, 304; II, 245
Sec. 10-c II, 245
Sec. 12 IL 245
Sec. 22 1, 10, 12, 13, 14
Wisconsin Constitution.
Art. I, sees. 5, 13, 22 XIV, 531
Art. I, sec. 13 X, 546, 550
Art. IV, sec. 1 XIV, 531
Art, VII, sec. 2 XIV, 531
Art. XI, sec. 1 1, 335
Art. XI, sec. 2 XV, 265
sec. 3 XIII, 30
sec. 3 X, 546, 552
sec. 13 XIII, 30
Revised Statutes of 1849.
Ch.34 XIV,201
Wisconsin Statutes of 1898.
Ch. 86. ..IV, 179; V, 527;
VIII, 712, 736
Gh. 87.. ..II, 824; IV, 127,
179; V, 449, 527; VI, 5, 7,
474; VII, 770, 771; VIII,
28, 67, 69, 75, 291, 292,
301, 305, 582, 583, 699,
700, 710, 712, 735, 736;
IX, 2, 229, 515
Sec. 940^ II, 689
Sec. 959-48 II, 687
Sec. 1037a XV, 630
Sec. 1265 VI, 426
Sec. 1276 VI, 427
Sec. 1753 11,60,61
Sec. 1778 II, 686; VII, 445
Sec. 1780 II, 686
Sec. 1780a II, 686
Sec. 17806 II, 686, 688
Sec. 1788 X, 66
Sec. 1797 II, 572
Sec. 1798 1, 750, 753; II, 118
Sec. 1801. ...I, 223, 227, 228,
229, 230, 231, 287, 834;
IV 393
Sec. 1802... I, 167; II, 572;'
IV, 400, 793, 794, 796
Sec. 1802a V, 211
Sec. 1809 I, 308
Sec. 1809, subdiv. 3 Ill, 296
23
Vol. and Pages
Sec. 1809a II, 348, 349
Sec. 1820... I, 754, 837, 840;
VII, 406
Sec. 1828, I. 118, 634, 635,
757; II, 369, 370, 373, 381
Sec. 1831 I, 763; VII, 403,
406, 756
Sec. 1831a, III, 44, 50, 52,
296; IV, 400, 401, 793, 794,
796; VI, 197; VII, 743
Sec. 1832 1, 765; VII, 464
Sec. 1836. .. I, 308; III, 51; V,
187, 188; VIII, 696
Sec. 1846 II, 587
Sec. 1862 V, 527
Sec. 1862a II, 688
Sec. 1863 V, 527
Sec. 1897 II, 572
Sec. 4595 VIII, 527
Wisconsin Statutes.
Ch. 406 X, 552
Ch. 41 X, 552
Sec. 51.43 XV, 630
Sec. 697-35 XIV, 178
Sec. 925-956 XI, 162
Sec. 925-956 to 925-95cXIV, 650
Sec. 925-95C XI, 162
Sec. 925-95e XI, 162
Sec. 925-133 X, 525
Sec. 925-142a X, 525
Sec. 926-11 X, 552
Sec. 927-11 to 927-19. ..VIII, 262
Sec. 927-17 X, 550
Sec. 940J-41 Ill, 296
Sec. 976/ XV, 261
Sec. 1299/2-1... .V, 188; VIII,
695; XIV, 800; XV, 22
Sec. 1299A:-1 XIII, 435
Sec. 13886 - XV, 368
Sec. 1596 XIV, 190,192,
193, 200, 201, 474
Sec. 1596-1 XIV, 201
Sec. 1596-2-4 XIV, 201
Sec. 1596-47 X, 382
Sec. 1596-47, par. 2 X. 381
Sec. 1596-50 to 1596-79 incl.
.■ XV, 714, 722
Sec. 1596-59 XV, 721
Sec. 1596-60, subsec. 1 '
XV, 717, 719, 722
subsec. 2
XV, 714, 717, 721, 723
Sec. 1596-62 XV, 721
706
Laws Cited
Vol. and Pages
Sec. 1596-69, subsec. 6... .XV, 720
Sec. 1596-73 X, 381, 382
Sec. 1753-9 V, 284
Sec. 1753-50, subsec. 4
XIV, 140, 141
Sec. 1778a, b:c, d, ej, g. III, 151
Sec. 1778/1 Ill, 151; VI, 198
Sec. 1791a XIII, 592
Sec. 1797-1 to 1797-38
XIV, 447
Sec. 1797-lm VII, 743
Sec. 1797-2 .....XII, 230
Sec. 1797-3 V, 424
Sec. 1797-3 IX, 395
Sec. 1797-4, 111,570,599;
V, 195; XIV, 764; XV, 407
Sec. 1797-4a XI, 134, 135
Sec. 1797-4, subd. c Ill, 570
Sec. 1797-4e XIII, 92
Sec. 1797-5 IV, 473
Sec. 1797-6 VII, 6; XI, 387
Sec. 1797-9 V, 424; XIV, 342
Sec. 1797-9, subsec. 2.. ..XV, 232
Sec. 1797-10 V, 424
Sec. 1797-lOm VIII, 104;
IX, 60, 61; XI, 641
Sec. 1797-11. ...IV, 473, 476;
V, 424; IX, 70, 71, 72; XII, ,
230; XV, 820
Sec. 1797-llm...III, 44; VI,
503, 558; VII, 145; XI,
179; XIII, 411, 622; XIV,
252* XV 419
Sec. 1797-llm, subd. l.!..IV,' 795
subd. 2, IV, 796; XIV, 117
Sec. 1797-11/77, subd. 3. ..IV, 796
Sec. 1797-12 V, 188, 475;
VII, 20, 599
Sec. 1797-12
XII, 498, 705; XV, 610
Sec. 1797-12e....IX, 220, .537;
XII, 498, 704, 705, 706;
XIII, 431, 479; XIV, 178,
800, 801; XV, 610
Sec. 1797-12e, f, g, h, ij
XIV, 447
Sec. 1797-12/... XIV, 178
Sec. 1797-12n VI, 558
Sec. 1797-120 ..XV, 204
Sec. 1797-14 IV, 473
Sec. 1797-14, subd. e IV, 473
Sec. 1797-14, subd./. IV, 463
Sec. 1797-16 VIII, 686
Sec. 1797-18 V, 401
Sec. 1797-22-2 XIV, 259
Sec. 1797-22.2 '.XIV, 282
Sec. 1797-28, V, 401, 475; IX, 399
Sec. 1797-31, V, 188; XIV, 447
Sec. 1797-37/n....III,181,336,
340, 341, 342, 391, 599;
IV, 174; V, 428, 642; VI,
Vol. and Pages
668; VII, 776, 778, 780,
781; VIII, 35, 38,478,509;
X, 633; XI, 273. 495, 702,
707; XII, 438; XIII, 469,
781; XV, 648
Sec. 1797-39 to 1797-60
XIII, 271
Sec. 1797-43, par. 2 V, 637
Sec. 1797-44 III. 296
Sec. 1797-45 XIII, 270
Sec. 1797-46..XIII, 65, 270, 710
Sec. 1797-47 XIII, 270
Sec. 1797-51 Ill, 281
Sec. 1797-53 Ill, 296
Sec. 1797-56 .....Ill, 296
Sec. 1797-58 XV, 819
Sec. 1797-61 XIII, 270
Sec. 1797g-l..:. IV, 393
Sec. 1797^-1, subsec. 1....XV, 786
Sec. 1797^-2 ...IV, 393; XV,
35, 434
Sec. 1797/n-l to 1797/77-108
XIV, 294
Sec. 1797/77-1 to 1797/n-109
VI, 99
Sec. 1797/n-l, subdiv. 5
Ill, 84; VI, 118
Sec. 1797/77-3 .IV, 623; XIII, 592
Sec. 1797/n-4 XIV, 661;
XI, 754; XV, 102
Sec. 1797/77-15....XI, 193, 456, 475
Sec. 1797/77-23. ..Ill, 140; IV,
743; VIII, 271; XII, 418;
XIV, 356
Sec. 1797/n-27 V, 303, 401
Sec. 1797/n-28 IV, 371
Sec. 1797/77-30, sub. 2 XII, 73
Sec. 1797/77-33 XII, 354;
XIV, 681
Sec. 1797/77-43 V, 690; VII, 20
Sec. 1797/77-46 IV. 624
745; V, 337; VI, 324; VII,
166, 381, 491; IX, 436; X,
805; XII, 210; XIII, 65, 710
Sec. 1797/77-61 IV, 624
Sec. 1797/77-64 to 1797/77-73
XI 755
Seb"r797m-7i".'.".'.'.XIIl',""257,'
439; XIV, 539, 569, 570,
815; XV, 16, 454
Sec. 1797/n-76 XV, 262
Sec. 1797/77-77 IV, 300,
301; XIV, 293
Sec. 1797/n-78 ..XV, 265
Sec. 1797/n-79 X, 525
Sec. 1797/n-79, subd. 2;.....V, 486
Sec. 1797/77-80.. ..V, 486; VI,
99; VIII, 261; X, 547, 548;
XIV, 294; XV, 260
Laws Cited
101
Vol. and Pa^es
Sec. 1797m-81. ...X, 525, 547,
548; XV, 262, 263
Sec. 1797/72-82 ...III, 80; X.
525 526
Sec. 1797/n-83..V, 488; VI,' 123
Sec. 1797/n-84, 85 and 86....V, 488
Sec. 1797m-87....III, 297; XI, 302
Sec. 1797/77-89. ..Ill, 442; XII, 162
Sec. 1797/n-89 XV, 135
Sec. 1797/72-90... Ill, 103, 112
141, 142, 502; VI, 58, 203;
VII, 611; X, 472; XI, 184,
408; XII, 303; XIII, 54,
400, 580; XIV, 710; XV, 614
Sec. 1797/72-91....IV, 301, 304,
305; XV, 797, 814
Sec. 1797/77-91, par. 2 IV, 300
Sec. 1797/72-92....XII,354;XI, 683
Sec. 1797/n-95 XIII, 258
Sec. 1797/n-99 IX, 545, 551
Sec. 1797/n-102 XV, 16
Sec. 1797/72-105....V, 303; VI,
44, 718; VIII, 142; XII, 265
Sec. 1797/77-108 X, 552
Sec. 1798a XV, 347
Sec. 1798/77 XIII, 596
Sec. 1801 ...VIII, 246; XIV,
583, 584
Sec. 1802 Ill, 49, 296;
XIII, 622; XV, 419
Sec. 1802a XII, 558
Sec. 1802-a XIV, 252
Sec. 1802c IX, 71; XV, 820
Sec. 1802rf IX, 71
Sec. 1809-e. XIV, 178
Sec. 1810 XV, 274, 275, 276
Sec. 1811 XV, 275
Sec. 1813 XV, 275, 276
Sec. 1814a XV, 494
Sec. 1831a XV, 419
Sec. 1836 XII, 705, 706;
XIV, 447, 448, 551, 552
Sec. 1836a, subd. 1 Ill, 297
Sec. 1862 XV, 664
Sec. 1862^ XIII, 90
Sec. 1863 XV, 664
Sec. 1863a, subd. 1 IV, 760
Sec. 3187-a XIV, 798
Sec. 3214 XII, 231
Wisconsin Laws of 1852.
Ch.426 XIV, 192. 195
Wisconsin Laws of 1854.
Ch. 29 XV, 699
Gh. 331, sees. 7, 8.. XIV, 477, 478
Wisconsin Laws of 1866.
Ch.359 X, 715
Wisconsin Laws of 1882.
Ch. 196 XIII, 592
Wisconsin Laws of 1885.
Ch. 227 X, 524
Ch. 499 XI, 304
Vol. and Pages
Wisconsin Laws of 1887.
Ch. 121 X, 524
Wisconsin Laws of 1889.
Ch. 221 X, 524
Wisconsin Laws of 1891.
Ch. 405 ...X, 524
Wisconsin Laws of 1893.
Ch. 236 XIII, 592
Wisconsin Laws of 1897.
Ch. 175 X, 343, 345
Wisconsin Laws of 1905.
Ch. 19, sec. 6 1,640
Ch. 263 XIII, 498
Ch. 317, sec. 1 1,640
Ch. 348 :il, 757
Ch. 348, sees. 1, 2 and 3.... 1 1, 757
Ch. 348, sees. 4 and 5 II, 758
Ch. 362 II, 354, 824; III,
44, 471; IV, 136, 179,392;
V, 195, 418, 449; VI, 5,
401, 474; VII, 770, 771;
VIII, 28, 67, 69, 75, 246,
291, 292, 301, 305, 582,
583, 699, 700, 710, 712,
735, 736; IX, 2, 229, 515;
X, 11, 12, 335, 353, 430
Ch. 362, sec. 2... I, 178, 179,
185, 186, 189, 632, 733. 734
Ch. 362, sec. 3... I, 6, 7, 33, 41,
43, 223, 227, 230, 231, 500,
532,538,632; 11,116.119.
120, 131, 245, 593, 852
Ch. 362, sec. 4... I, 6, 7, 110,
112, 113, 114, 118, 303,
833,841; 11,119,293,608;
III, 56; IV, 777
Ch. 362, sec. 4a .'...I,'llo', 303
Ch. 362, sec. 4c I, 110, 303
Ch. 362, sec. 5 II, 293
Ch. 362, sec. 6 }I, 18, 212,
213, 221, 663, 751, 752; II,
199. 245, 608
Gh. 362, sec. 7 1, 199.202
Ch. 362, sec. 8....I,2, 3, 6;i0,
11, 12, 503, 838, 840
Ch. 362, sec. 9... I, 223, 227,
230, 231, 632
Ch. 362, sec. 10 II, 105,245
Ch. 362, sec. 11. ...I, 118, 593,
632, 733, 734. 735, 736, 841
Ch. 362, sec. 12... I, 41, 126,
212, 227, 293, 327, 500,
632,707,751,752; 11,119,
245, 250, 767, 852; IV.
108; V, 428; VIII, 39, 478
Ch. 362, sec. 12rf I. 715
Ch. 362, sec. 14. .1,212, 228,
500, 633, 751; 11.293
Ch. 362, sec. 15,
I, 500, 707; II, 119
Ch. 362, sec. 16 1, 500
708
Laws Cited
Vol. and Pages
Gh. 362, sec. 16 II, 120
Ch. 362, sec. 22. ..I, 6, 8, 9,
10,110,212.213,303,633,
751; II, 120, 179, 348, 354
Gh. 362, sec. 23. .1,6, 9, 118,
633, 634, 751, 752; II, 348, 349
Gh. 362, sec. 24.. .1, 110, 111,
303, 304; II, 120
Gh. 362, sec. 25... I, 118, II, 120
Gh. 362, sec. 28 1,6
Gh. 362, sec. 31 1, 633, 752
Gh. 362, sec. 32....I, 302; III,
340, 341
Gh. 362, sec. 35. ..I, 108,110,
111, 112, 114, 115, 117
Gh. 362, sec. 36 II, 758
Gh. 386 I, 167; II, 572
Gh. 479 V, 211
Wisconsin Laws of Special
Session 1905.
Gh. 12, sec. 1 1, 177
Gh. 12, sec. 74 1, 640
Gh. 13, sec. 3 1, 126, 293, 327
Wisconsin Laws of 1907.
Gh. 102 XIII, 435
Gh. 120 XIV, 800
Gh. 189 XV, 471, 472
Gh. 262 II, 572; VI, 197
Gh. 265 II, 572,.
Gh. 348 X,353
Gh. 352. ...11, 42, 44, 46, 432,
436, 442, 445, 572; IV, 120,
427; VIII, 67, 68, 69
Gh. 454 Ill, 281; V, 467,
477, 638; VII, 742
Gh. 454, sec. 1797-43....II, 375, 588
Gh. 454, sec. 1797-44 II, 585
Gh. 454, sec. 1797-48 II, 375
Gh. 454, sec. 1797-56 II,
369, 370, 372, 374, 377,
397, 437, 439, 441
Gh. 464 II, 117
Gh. 499 11,3,4,20, 113,
327, 671, 679; III, 69, 70,
187,296.440,779; IV, 151,
540, 623, 624, 743, 745; V,
337, 401, 485, 488, 679,
680; VI, 44, 98, 324, 506,
616, 718; VII, 166, 188,
381, 491, 609; VIII, 142;
IX, 436, 568; X, 524, 548,
549, 805; XI, 456, 475;
XII, 210, 418; XIII, 30,
65, 169, 453, 580, 710;
XIV, 292, 294, 356, 681
Ch. 499, sec. 1 Ill, 149
Gh. 499, sec. 2 X, 552
Ch. 499, sec. 99 VIII, 148
Gh. 499, sec. 1797m-6 II, 110
Gh. 499, sec. 1797/n-15 II, 112
Ch. 499, sec. 1797/n-23 II, 632
Vol. and Pages
Gh. 499, sec. 1797/n-49 II, 671
Gh. 499, sec. 1797/77-77 II, 679
Gh. 499, sec. 1797m-87....II,
328, 331
Gh. 499, sec. 1797/n-89 II, 541
Gh. 499, sec. 1797/n-90 II, 544
Gh. 499, sec. 17/97/77-91 II,
114, 115
Gh. 499,sec.l797/7?-99....II,30,769
Gh. 499, sec. 1797/77-105 ...II,
3, 105, 136, 538
Gh. 575, II, 264, 265, 266,
269, 270, 271; III, 346
Gh. 576 II, 47, 53, 55, 57
Gh. 576, sec. 1753-3 II, 58
Gh.582..V,439;VII,780;X, 11,12
Gh. .582, sec. 8. ..II, 116, 117,
128, 129, 133, 251, 300, 609, 763
Ch. 595 II, 349
Gh. 614 II, 543, 824, 851;
IV. 393; XV, 448
Gh. 614, sec. 1797^-2 II, 851
Ch. 654 II, 337
Gh. 665 X, 5^5, 548, 549
Wisconsin Laws of 1909.
Ch. 136 V, 439
Ch. 213 VI. 92; VIII, 261;
XIII, 580
Ch. 271 IV, 108, 110,196,
205, 355; VII, 780
Ch. 355 V, 195; XIII, 90
Gh. 481 IV,, 237, 795; V,
727; VI, 503, 564; VII,
145; IX, 159; XI, 75, 78
Ch. 491 VII, 143
Gh. 524 XI, 302
Ch. 540....VI, 682, 683; VIII,
423; XIV, 800
Wisconsin Laws of 1911.
Gh. 28 VIII, 249
Ch. 160 XI, 134
Gh. 191 VI, 684; XIV, 800
Gh. 193 XI, 75
Ch. 233 XI, 161
Ch. 302 IX, 68, 70, 72
Ch. 302, sec. 1 IX, 71
Gh. 358... VII I, 102, 104, 279,
281; XI, 638
Gh. 366 XIII, 90
Gh. 416. ..XII, 10, 43; XIII, 596
Gh. 483 VIII, 242, 246
Ch. 546 XIV, 530, 531
Gh. 591 XV, 472
Gh. 640 XV, 438
Gh. 652 ...X, 381, 382; XIV,
190, 192, 193, 201
Sec. 1809y XI, 137
Wisconsin Laws of Special
Session 1912.
Ch. 17, subsec. 2, XIV, 190,
191, 201
Laws Cited
709
Vol. and Pages
Wisconsin Laws of 1913.
Ch. 62 XIII, 270, 301, 306
Ch. 66....XII, 240; XIII, 370,
373, 534; XI, 707
Ch. 69 XIII, 680
Ch. 603 XIV, 129,344
Ch. 610 XII, 745, 746;
XIII, 166, 168, 437, 438,
601, 631; XIV, 131, 132,
135, 398, 457, 458, 459,
538, 569, 795, 803, 815
Ch. 616 XIV, 342
Ch. 755. ..XV, 714, 715, 722, 723
Ch. 756 XIV, 140, 143
United States Constitution.
Sec. 1, 14th Amend., XIV, 531
Art. 1, sec. VIII 11,827
Art. 1, sec. 8, subsec. 3. ...XIV, 532
Art. l,sec. 10. ...I, 665;X, 10,
318; XI, 4; XIV, 531
Art. 14, Amendment sec. 1...
I, 346, 665; X, 10, 318; XI, 4
United States Laws, 1887.
Ch. 104, sec 16 (as amended,
ch. 3591, sec. 5, Laws of
1906) XI, 702
United States Act of Con-
gress, Apr. 24, 1894.
28 Stats. 64, c. 64 Ill, 268
United States Act of Con-
gress, June 29, 1906.
(Interstate Commerce Act
as amended.)
Vol. and Pages
34 Stats. 584, c. 3591, sec. 1
(U. S. Comp. St. 1901,
Supp. of 1907, p. 892). ...Ill, 574
Canadian Railway Act of 1903.
Sec. 193 II, 841
Georgia Civil Code, 1910.
Sec. 2711 XII, 231
Sec. 2712 XII, 231
Iowa Constitution.
Art. 1, sec. 18 X, 554
Iowa Code.
pp. 476, 477 X, 554
Massachusetts Laws.
Ch. Ill and 112, Supp. to
R. S. Stats. 1902-1906. ..II, 55
Minnesota Laws.
Sec. 2872, Revised Laws of
1905 11,55
New York Laws.
R. R. Law of N. Y., sec. 12,
11,370
New York Laws of 1897.
Ch. 754 11,371
New York Laws of 1905.
Ch. 737, sec. 11 IX, 557
New York Laws of 1907.
Ch. 429 II, 57; IX, 557
Ch. 429, sec. 55 II, 58
Texas Laws of 1893.
Ch. 50 II, 55
CASES CITED
/
TABLE OF CASES CITED.
Vol. and Pages
Abbott V. Railway Co., 1880,
80, N. Y. 27 1, 635, 636
Albright et al. v. C. St. P. M. &
0. R. Co., 1914, 14 W. R.
C. R. 763 XV, 407
Alleged Unlawful Rates and
Practices, etc., by A. T. & S.
F. R. Co. et al., 1897, 7
1. C. R. 240 11,242
Allen V. Clausen, 1902, 114
Wis. 244 II, 687, 689
V. Sackrider, 1867, 37
N. Y. 341... I, 838
Altenburg v. Grant, 1898, 85
Fed. 345 II, 61
Alter et al. v. City of Manito-
woc, 1912, 10 W. R. C. R.
387... XIV, 691, 696, 698, 699, 700
— — ■ V. , 1914, 14 W. R.
C. R. 690...' XIV, 698, 699, 700
Altoona & P. C. R. Co. v. B. C.
R. Co. et al., 1896, 177,
Penn. St. 443 IV, 474
American Merchants' Union
Express Co. v. Schier, 1870,
55 111. 148 111,565
V. Wolf et al., 1875, 79
111. 430 Ill, 566
American Union Express Co. v.
Robinson, 1872, 72 Penn.
St. 274 Ill, 566
Ames V. U. P. R. Co., 1894,
64 Fed. 165 V, 222
Anaconda Copper Mining Co.
V. C. & E. R. Co. et al.,
1910, 19 I. C. C. R. 592, XII, 245
Andarko Cotton Oil Co. v.
A. T. & S. F. R. Co., 1910,
20 1. C. C. R. 43
VII, 779; XIV, 633
Anderson v. W. Chicago St. R.
Co., 1902, 65 N. E. 717. ..I, 637
Anderton et al. v. M. St. P. &
S. S. M. R. Co!, 1913, 12
W^ R. C. R. 506 XIV, 247
V. , 1914, 14 W. R. C.
R.227 XIV, 471
Appleton, City of, v. Appleton
W. Wks. Co., 1910, 5 W. R.
C. R. 215, VI, 99, 102, 120,
122, 238; VII, 83, 211; X,
123, 742
Vol. and Pages
Appleton W. Wks. Co. v. Rail-
road Comm. of Wis., 1913,
142N. W. 476; 154 Wis. 121
XII, 190, 662, 663
V. , 1913, 154 Wis.
121 'XV, 270,631
Arena & R. Tel. Co. v. Troy
& H. C. Tel. Co. et al., 1914,
13 W. R. C. R. 763 XV, 316
Arries & Packham et al. v. C.
& N. W. R. Co., 1911, 7
W. R. C. R. 131 IX, 75
Ashland v. C. & N. W. R. Co., '
1900, 105 Wis. 398 VIII, 674
V. Maciejewski, 1909, 140
Wis. 642 VIII, 696
, City of, V. Ashland W.
Co., 1909, 4 W.R. C. R. 273
V, 66, 275, 493, 577, 578;
VI, 82, 94, 95, 122; VII, 88-
89, 310, 311, 312-319; X,
116; XIV, 2, 27, 33, 60
-, City of, V. Wheeler, 1894,
88 Wis. 607 II, 686; IV, 302
Aspinwall v. C. & N. W. R.
Co., 1877, 41 Wis. 474. ..Ill, 81
Associated Jobbers of Los
Angeles v. A. T. & S. F. R.
Co., 1910, 18 I. C. C. R.
310 XIV,.273
Atchison T. & S. F. R. Co. v.
D. & N. O. R. Co., 1884,
llOU. S. 667 : IV, 473
V. I. C. C. 1911, 188 Fed.
229 XIV, 273, 274
Atlantic Coast Line v. N. C.
Corp. Comm., 1907, 206,
U. S. 1 1, 616; XV, 603
V. Wharton, 1907, 207.
U. S. 336 II, 626; IV, 317
Attorney-General v. C. &
N. W. R. Co. et al., 1874,
35 Wis. 425 IV, 304
V. Eau Claire, 1875, 37
Wis. 400 „ 1,642
V. et al., 1875, 37
Wis. 400 XV, 787
ex. rel. Askew v. Smith,
1901, 109 Wis. 541.
II, 689; IV, 349
— V. Erie etc. R. Co., 1884,
20N. W. 696 1,638
712
Cases Cited
Vol. and Pages
Attorney-General v. Railroad
Cos., 1874, 35 Wis. 425
I, 77, 325, 331
V. W. W. R. Co., 1874,
36 Wis. 466 1, 638, 751
Aurora W. Co. v. Aurora, 1895,
129 Mo. 540 VIII, 679
Austin V. Burgess, 1874, 36
Wis. 190 II, 118
Avery v. Vermont Elec. Co. et
al., 1903, 75Vt.235 XV, 790
Avinger v. S. C. R. Co., 1888,
35 Am. & E. R. Cases,
(O. S.) 519 .....I, 758, 763
Ayers v. C. & N. W. R. Co.,
1888, 71 W^is. 372...,. XIV, 90
Badger Co. v. M. St. P. &
S. S. M. R. Co. et al., 1911,
8 W^ R. C. R. 125 XI, 434
Bald Eagle V. R. Co. v. N. V. R.
Co., 1895, 171 Pa. St. 284 .II, 847
Baldwin v. American Express
Co., 1859, 23 111. 197, 198....
Ill, 562, 566
Baltimore & Ohio etc. Ry. v.
Voigt, 1900, 176 U. S.
498 XV, 798
Baltimore & O. R. Co. v.
Walker, 1888, 45 O. St. 577
II, 377
Bank of Middlebury v. R. &
W. R. R. Co., 1858, 30 Vt.
159 II, 587
Barker & Stewart Lbr. Co. v.
C. M. & St. P. R. Co., 1913,
11 W. R. C. R. 537..XIII, 378, 379
Barnes v. C. M. & St. P. R.
Co. etal., 1910,4W. R. C. R
478. ..IV, 767; V, 730; VIII, 684
Barney v. G. B. & W. R. Co.
et al., 1910, 4 W. R. G. R.
775 V,292'
V. Oyster Bay and Hunt-
ington Steamboat Co., 1876,
67 N. Y. 301 IV, 350
Bartlett v. C. & N. W. R. Co.,
1897, 96 Wis. 335
II, 572; IV, 401, 794
Barton v. Barber, 1881, 104
U. S. 126 :.. .1,638
Bassett v. A. C. & M. Co.,
1905, 88 S. W. 318.. I, 764
Bates V. Relyea et al., 1840,
' 23 W^end. (N. Y.) 336 IV, 63
Battis V. Hamlin, 1868, 22 Wis.
669 1, 188
Baxendale v. G. W. R. Co.,
1858, 94 E. C. L. 308 II, 242
Bayard v. Smith, 1837, 17
Wend. 88 II, 122
Vol. and Pages
Beasley v. Texas & Pacific
R. Co., 1903, 191 U. S. 492
XV, 798
Beauchamp v. I. & G. N. R. Co.
1882, 56 Tex. 239 1, 229
Beaver Dam Lbr. Co. v. C. St.
P. M. & O. R. Co., 1908,
2 W^ R. C. R. 700 ...III, 56,
64, 601; XI, 64; XIV, 627
Beaver Dam Malleable Iron
Works v. C. M. & St. P. R.
Co., 1908, 2 W. R. C. R.
703. ..HI, 518, 597; IV, 172,
174, 177; VII, 18
Bedford-Bowling Green Stone
Co. V. Oman, 1903, 31 Am.
& E. R. Cases, 249 1, 759
Belmont & Pleasant View Tel.
Co. et al. V. Wis. Tel. Co. &
La Fayette County Tel. Co.,
1914, 15 W^ R. C. R. 92 .XV, 447
Beloit, City of, v. Beloit W. G.
& El. Co., 1911, 7 W. R. C.
R. 187..X, 116, 750, 763; XIV, 70
Beloit W. G. & El. Co. v. City
of Beloit, 1910, 5 W. R.
C. R. 617
VII, 305-307, 689-690; XII, 270
Belt R. Co. of C. V. United
States, 1909, 168 Fed. 542,
IV, 474
Bennett v. Northern Pacific
Express Co., 1885, 12 Ore.
49 HI, 566
Berend v. Wis. Tel. Co., 1909,
4 W. R. C. R. 150. V, 692;
X, 561: XI, 483; XIII, 522,
416, 401
Berger v. Berger, 1899, 104
W^is. 282 1, 189
Bergeron v. Hobbs, 1897, 96
W^is. 647 ......II, 689; IV, 349
Bigelow v. West Wis. R. Co.,
1871, 27 Wis. 478 HI, 80
Birmingham R. Co. v. Jacobs,
1890, 92 Ala. 187 1,184
Black River Improvement Co.
V. Holway et al., 1894, 87
Wis. 584 IV, 304
Blair v. M. & P. D. V. R. Co.,
1866, 20 Wis. 254 1, 170
Blanchard v. Isaacs, 1848, 3
Barb. (N.Y.) 388 HI, 567
Block-Pollak Iron Co. v. C.
M. & St. P. R. Co., 1911,
6 W. R. C. R. 205 VI, 548
Blodgett Mining Co. v. C. &
N. W. R. Co., 1912, 10
W. R. C. R. 377 XIII, 784
Blondell v. Consolidated G.
Co., 1899, 89 Md. 732 HI, 143
Cases Cited
713
Vol. and Pages
Board etc. v. La Fayette etc.
R. Co., 1875, 50 Ind. 85...
I, 635, 760
Boise City I. & L. Go. v.
Clark, 1904, 131 Fed. 415..V, 225
Boothby v. G. T. R., 1890,
34 Atl. 157 1, 230
Bowar et al. v. C. & S. C. R.
Co. et al., 1911, 6 W. R.
G. R. 693 XIII, 744
Bowe V. G. Lumber Co., 1890,
86 Ga. 17 II, 587
Bowker v. M. St. P. & S. S. M.
R. Co., 1908, 2 W. R. C. R.
514 XV,586
Brass v. North Dakota, 1894,
153, U.S. 391 1,640,645
Brightman v. Kirner, 1867,
22 Wis. 54 1, 187
Brinkman v. Jones, 1878, 44
Wis. 498 V, 112
Bristol V. Bristol W. Wks.,
1901, 23 R. I. 274 Ill, 85
Brittingham & Young Co. v.
C. M. &St. P. R. Co. etal.,-
1911, 6 W.R. C. R. 528
XIV, 719
V. M. St. P. & S. S. M.
R. Co. et al., 1910, 4 W. R.
C. R. 772 XI, 64
Britton Cooperage Co. v. C.
M. & St. P. R. Co., 1909,
3 W. R. C. R. 386. ..Ill, 386, 390
Brock et al. v. Hishen et al.,
1876, 40 Wis. 674 X, 550
Brooke v. Mitchell, 1840, 6
Mees. &W. 473 1, 116
Brown v. C. & N. W. R. Co.,
1899, 102 Wis. 137 Ill, 564
Brown v. Gerald et al., 1905,
100 Me. 351 XV, 788
Brown v. Janesville St. Ry. Co.
1910, 4 W. R. C. R. 757
V, 422, 423; XIV, 522; XV,
659, 820
Brown v. Winnisimet Co.; 1865
93 Mass. 326 IV, 352
Brown Bros. Lbr. Co. v. M. St.
P. & S. S. M. R. Co. et al.,
1910, 5 W. R. C. R. 647
XII 133
Brownell ' v.' ' o'.'c'.' R. ' R. 1895,'
164 Mass. 29 1, 637
Brunswick & Topsham W.
Dist. V. Maine W. Co., 1904,
99Me. 371....III, 87; V,223,
224, 278; VI, 120
Brush El. Lt. & P. Co. v.
Montgomery, 1896, 114 Ala.
433 ; : VIII, 679
Vol. and Pages
Brymer et al. v. Butler W. Co.,
1897, 179 Pa. 231
V, 220; VIII, 26
Budd V. New York, 1892, 143
U. S. 517
I, 336, 640, 642, 644, 645
Buell V. C. M. & St. P. R. Co.,
1907, 1 W. R. C. R. 324
1,509,510,511,534, 540,
576, 582, 708; III, 332, 814;
V, 309, 327; X, 167
Buergin et al. v. So. W'rs. Ry.
Co., 1913, 11 W. R. C. R.
762 XII, 167
Buffalo Barb Wire Co. v.
PhilHps, 1886, 67 Wis. 129,
132 VIII, 676
Buffalo County Tel. Co. v.
Turner, 1908, 118 N. W.
(Neb.) 1064 IV, 157
Bullard v. American Express
Co., 1895, 107 Mich. 695
Ill, 567
Burkholder v. C. B. & Q. R.
Co., 1908, 2 W. R. C. R.
765 ...IV,316
Burlington C. R. & N. R. Co.
V. Dey, 1891, 48 N. W. 98...
1,81; II, 122,
Burlington W. Wks. Co. v. •
Burlington, 1890, 43 Kan.
725 .....VIII, 679
Burns v. St. Paul City R. Co.,
1907, 101 Minn. 363, 365. IV, 353
Burrill v. I. C. R. Co., 1912,
9 W\ R. C. R. 319 X, 576
Bushnell v. C. M. & St. P. R.
Co., 1907, 1 W. R. C. R. 532
II, 346, 627; III, 605
Russian v. Milwaukee, L. S. &
W. R. Co., 1882, 56 Wis.
325 ....XII,414
Butchers & Drovers S. Y. Co.
V. L. & N. R. R. Co., 1895,
67 Fed. 37 1,636
Butterfield & Stranahan, 1904,
192U. S. 470 1,337
Caledonia, Town of, v. C. & M.
El. R. Co., 1913, 11 W. R.
C. R. 564, 567 XII, 386
Callen, Kames Jr., et al. v. C.
M. & St. P. R. Co., 1914,
13W. R. C.fl. 732 XIV, 581
Calumet Service Co. v. Chilton
1912, 148 Wis. 334; 135,
N. W. 131
X, 611; XV, 267. 630, 634
Cambridge Valley Bank v.
Delano, 1872, 48 N. Y. 326
V, 112
714
Cases Cited
Vol. and Pages
Capital Citv Gas Light Co. v.
Des Moines, 1896, 72 Fed.
829 V, 225, 278
Capital City Gas Co. v. C. V.
R. Co., 1905, 11 I. C. C. R.
104 ..II, 196
Capital Gas & Elec. Lt. Co. v.
Gaines, 1899, 20 Ky. L. R.
1464 Ill, 143
Carr v. N. P. R. Co., 1901,
91. C. C.R. 12 1,121
Carstens Packing Co. v.
Oregon S. L. R, Co. et al.,
1909, 17 I. C. C. R. 324..XII, 245
Castle V. B. & O. R. Co., 1899,
8 I. C. C. R. 333 II, 196
Caswell V. Boston E. R. Co.,
1906, 190 Mass. 527 XV, 662
Cauble v. Craig, 1912, 94 Mo.
App. 675 XV, 628
Cawker v. Meyer, 1911, 147
Wis. 320 XV, 789
Cedar Rapids Gaslight Co. v.
Cedar Rapids et al., 1909,
120 N. W. (la.) 966
IV, 158, 307; V, 229
Cedar Rapids W. Co. v. Cedar
Rapids, 1902, 118 Iowa, 234
111,87
Central Bank v. Worcester H.
R. Co., 1866, 13 Allen 105. 1, 184
Central El. Co. v. Street Ltg.
Dis. 1904, 71 N. J. L. 403...
VIII, 679
Central New York Tel. &
Teleg. Co. v. Averill, 1907,
105 N. Y. Supp. 378 II, 847
Central P. R. Co. v. California,
1896, 162 U. S. 91 XV, 628
Central Stock Yards Co. v.
L. & N. R. Co., 1902, 118
Fed. Rep. 113. ..II, 294; VI, 71
Central Trans. Co. v. Pullman
Gar Co., 1891, 139 U. S. 24
I, 636
Central Yellow Pine Assn. v.
V. S. & P. R. Co., 1904,
10 I. C. C. R. 193
I, 214; II, 242
Chamber of Comm. of Milw. v.
C. B. & Q. R. Co. et al.,
1909, 4 W\ R. C. R. 80 ...IV, 782
Chapman v. M. R. & L. E. R.
Co., 1856, 60 St. Rep. 119. 1, 762
Chapman Valve Mfg. Co. v.
Oconto Water Co., 1895,
89 Wis. 264 11,688
Charley v. Pothoff, 1903, 118
Wis. 258 VIII, 675
Cheetham v. McCormick, 1896
178 Pa. St. 186 1, 184
Vol. and Pages
Cherokee Nation v. K. R. Co.,
1890, 135 U. S. 641. ...I 78, 335
Cherokee, Town of, v. S. C. &
I. F. Town Lot & Land Co.,
1879, 52 Iowa 279; 3 N.
W.42 X, 554
Chicago & Alton R. Co. v.
Sufferin; 1889, 21 N. E. 824
I, 638
Chicago & G. T. R. Co. v.
Wellman, 1892, 143 U..S.
339 ...I, 336, 345
Chicago & N. W. R. Co. v.
Dey, 1888, 35 Fed. 866
I, 337, 708; II, 122; VIII, 25
V. Morehouse, 1901, 112
Wis 1,755; 11,439; 111,50;
IV, 400, 793
V. O. A. & B. W. R. Co.,
1900, 107 Wis. .192 1,754,840
V. State, 1906, 128 Wis.
553 Ill, 78; XV, 629
Chicago Dock & Canal Co. v.
Garrity et al., 1885, 115
111.. 155 111,49
Chicago B. & Q. R. Co. v.
Chicago, 1897, 166 U. S. 266
1,336
V. People, 1875, 77 111.
443 II, 122
V. Railroad Commission,
1913, 152 Wis. 654.
XIV, 448, 584, 585; XV, 603
Chicago, M. & St. P. R. Co.
V. Brd. of Supervisors of
Crawford Co., 1880, 48 Wis.
666 : 1,625
V. City of Milwaukee,
1897, 97 Wis. 418 II, 381
V. Janesville, 1908, 137
Wis. 7 XV, 630
V. Minnesota, 1890, 10
Sup. Ct. Rep. 462 1, 5
— V. ,134 U.S. 418
I, 232, 336, 337; IV, 762
V. Railroad Comm., 1914,
157 Wis. 287; 146 N. W.
1129 XIV, 584
V. Tompkins, 1900, 176,
U. S. 167 1, 232, 340
Chicago R. I. & P. R. Co. v.
C. & A. R. Co., 1890, 3 I. C.
C. R. 462 II, 242
Chicago, St. P. M. & O. R. Co.
V. Bayfield Co., 1894, 87
Wis. 189 1, 625, 647
V. Becker, 1888, 35 Fed.
883 VIII, 25
V. Douglas Co., 1904,
122 Wis. 273 1, 626, 627, 628
Cases Cited
715
Vol. and Pages
Chicago, St. P. M. & O. R.
Grossing near Columbia Sta- "
tion. In re, 1912, 8 \V. R.
C. R. 516 VIII, 733
Chromaster v. M. N. R. Co.,
1912, 8 W. R. C. R. 734. IX, 534
Church V. M. & St. L. R. Co.,
1901, 14 S. Dak. 433 Ill,
56, 571; IV, 777; VI, 435
Cincinnati N. 0. & T. R. Co.
V. Int. Com. Com., 1896,
162, U. S. 184
I, 85, 216, 221; 11,243,244
Citizens Tel. Co. of Eau Claire
V. Railroad Comm. of Wis.
1914, 157 Wis. 498; 146 N.
W. 798 XIV, 570
City of Boscobel v. C. M. &
St. P. R. Co., 1912, 10 W. R.
C. R. 423 XV, 297
City of Ft. Atkinson v. C. &
N. W. R. Co., 1913, 13
W. R. C. R. 69 XV, 250
City of Green Bay v. Green
Bay Water Co., 11 W. R. C.
R. 236 XV, 85
City of Janesville v. Rockford
& Interurban R. Co., 1912,
9 W. R. C. R. 502 XV, 661
V. Janesville Water Co.,
1911, 7 W.R. C. R. 628
XV, 117, 690, 691, 692
City of La Crosse v. La Crosse
Gas & El. Co., 1911, 145
Wis. 408 XV, 267
City of Madison v. Madison
G. & E. Co., 1906, 108 N. W.
65 1, 302
City of Manitowoc v. Manito-
woc & Northern Tr. Co.,
1911, 145 Wis. 13.. ..XV, 800, 814
City of Marinette v. C. M. &
St. P. R. Co., 1910, 5 W. R.
C. R. 455 XV, 200
City of Milwaukee v. C. M. &
St. P. R. Co. et al., 1913,
11 W. R. C. R. 350 XV, 766
V. T. M. E. R. & L. Co.,
1912, 10 W. R. C. R. 1...
XV, 726, 728, 729, 730-735,
737, 740, 743, 745, 747, 748,
750, 751
City of Rhinelander v. M. St.
P. & S. S. M. R. Co., 1912,
8 W. R. C. R. 719 XV, 617
Cladwell v. Wilson, 1897, 121
N. C. 423 1, 337
Clark V. C. M. & St. P. R. Co.,
1907, 1 W. R. C. R. 590
IX, 72; XII, 187
Clark V. Janesville, 1860, 10
Wis. 165 1, 187
Vol. and Pages
Clark V. Nash, 1905, 198 U. S.
361 XV, 787
Clark V. 0. & S. W. R. Co.,
1876, 4 Neb. 458 1, 761
Cleveland C. C. & St. L. R. Co.
V. Illinois, 1900, 177 U. S.
514 1, 320, 518
Cochrane -Co. v. G. M. & St.
P. R. Co., 1908, 3 W. R. C. R
1....III, 33, 34, 39, 336; VI,
636; VII, 6
Coe V. East & W. R. Co., 1892,
52 Fed. 531 11,61
Cole V. D. S. S. & A. R. Co.,
1899, 104 Wis. 460 1, 173
Columbus R. Co. v. Kitchens,
1914, 83 S. E. 529 XV, 613
Columbus S. & H. R. Co.,
Appeals, 1901, 109 Fed. 177
11,61
Commercial Club of Omaha y.
C. R. I. & P. R. Co., 1896,
6 1. C. C. R. 677 11,242
V. Southern Pac. R. Co. et
al., 1907, 12 I. C. C. R. 495
VI, 71
Commonwealth v. F. R. Co,
1858, 12 Gray 180
I, 755; IV, 764
V. Louisville & Nashville
R. Co., 1882, 80 Ky. 291
VIII, 529
Comp'ton v. Mitton, 1 830, 1 2
N. J. L. 70 1,116
Conkey v. M. & St. P. R. Co.,
1872, 31 Wis. 619 IV, 474
Conner v. Marshfield, 1906,
128 Wis. 280 X, 549
Connor Land & Lbr. Co. v.
C. & N. W. R. Co., 1911,
7 W. R. C. R. 774 VIII,
476, 698; XI, 64; XIV, 627
V. , 1911, 8 W. R. C.
R. 697 XI, 64
Consolidated G. Co. v. City of
N. Y. 1907, 157 Fed. Rep.
849 Ill, 85; V, 225; X, 116
Continental Trust Co. v.
Toledo St. L & K. C. R. Co.,
1897, 82 Fed. 642; 86 Fed.
929 II, 61
Cook V. Milw. & St. P. R. Co.,
1874, 36 Wis. 45 1, 635
Coon et al. v. W. C. R. Co..
1907, 1 W.R. C. R. 724
II, 1, 93, 94, 355
Corey v. M. St. P. & S. S. M.
R. Co., 1906, 1 W. R. C. R.
191 1, 537; IV, 117
Cotting V. Kansas City S. Y.
Go. 1901, 183 U. S. 79.. I, 640, 645
716
Cases Cited
Vol. and Pages
Cotton et al. v. The Co.
Comms. of Leon Co. et al.,
1856, 6Fla. 610
Ill, 286; XIII, 415, 416
Courteen v. Kanawha Dis-
patch et al., 1901, 110 Wis.
610 IV, 474, 475
Covington & Cincinnati Bridge
Co. V. Kentucky, 1894, 154
U. S. 204 Ill, 572
Covington & L. T. R. Co. v.
Sanford, 1896, 164 U. S. 578
I, 233, 336, 338; IV, 62, 762;
V, 222; XV, 820
Covington S. Y. Co. v, Keith,
1891, 139 U. S. 128 •
I, 640; XIV, 276
Craig V. Twomey, 1860, 80
Mass. (14 Gray) 486 II, 587
Crary v. Lehigh Valley R. Co.,
1902, 53 Atl. 363 & 29
American & English R.
Cases-119 XV, 604
Creston Waterworks Co. v.
Creston, 1897, 101 la. 687
VIII, 679
Crews V. Richmond & D. R.
Co., 1888, 1 I. C. C. R. 425
II, 241, 248
Cruttwell V. Lye, 1810, 17
Ves. Jr. 335 111,85
Cumberland Fruit Pkg. Co. v.
C. St. P. M. & 0. R. Co.,
1914, 14 W. R. C. R. 267...
XV, 158
Cummings v. St. Louis, 1886,
90 Mo. 259 Ill, 49
Cunningham et al. v. Chip-
pewa Falls W. & L. Co.,
1910, 5 W.R. C. R. 302
VII, 242; X, 123, 167, 742
Curtiss & Withee Tel. Co. v.
Owen Tel. Co., 1914, 13
W. R. C. R. 538 XIV, 420
Cusick, et al. v. T. M. E. R. &
L. Co. et al. 1912, 10 W. R.
C. R. 314.. ..X, 159, 347, 363,
366; XV, .731, 748, 750, 751
Daniels v. Hurt, 1875, 118
Mass. 543 1, 636
Daniel Shaw Lbr. Co. v. C. St.
P. M. & 0. R. Co., 1908, 2
W.R. C. R. 342 111,601
Dartmouth College v. Wood-
ward, 1819, 4 Wheat. 518...
I, 335; V, 282
Davis v. City of Appleton,
1901, 109 Wis. 580 VIII, 674
Dayton v. Quigley et al., 1878,
29N.J. Eq. 77 IV, 159
Vol. and Pages
Delaware and A. Teleg. & Tel.
Co. V. State, 1892, 50 Fed.
677 V, 423
Depaw V. C. & N. W. R. Co.,
1912, 151 Wis. 109 XIII, 414
Detroit, Ft. W. & B. I. R. Co.
V. Comm. of Railroads, 1901,
127 Mich., 219; 189 U. S.
383 II, 382
Detroit, G. H. & M. R. Co. v.
I. C. C, 1896, 74 Fed. 803....
V, 425
Diamond G. Co. v. U. S. G.
Co., 1903, 187 U. S. 611. .XV, 603
Diamond Mills v. B. & M. R.
Co., 1902, 9 I. C. C. R. 311
II, 241
Dick et al. v. Madison W.
Comm., 1910, 5 W. R. C. R.
731, VI, 94; VII, 310; VIII,
46-47; X, 763; XI, 285
Dinwoodie v. C. M. & St. P.
R. Co., 1887, 70 Wis. 160. ...I, 171
Dolan v. C. M. & St. P. R. Co.,
1903, 118 Wis. 362 1, 640
Donald v. C. & N. W. R. Co.,
1911, 8 W. R. C. R. 320 X, 509
Doty et al. v. Strong, 1843,
1 Pin. 313 XII, 231
Doi'glas et al. v. Equitable
El. Lt. Co., 1913, 12 W\ R.
C. R. 337
XIV, 381, 382, 384, 386, 389
Dow V. Biedelman, 1888, 125
U.S. 680 1,336
Dowling V. Lancashire Ins.
Co., 1896, 92 Wis. 63 1, 708
Driver v. Western Union R.
Co., 1873, 32 Wis. 569. ..Ill, 81
Druecker V. C. & N. W. R. Co.,
1909, 3 W. R. C. R. 594..IIIi 591
Duluth-Superior Milling Co.
et al. V. N. P. R. Co., 1910,
5 W. R. C. R. 598 VII, 461
V. , 1910. 6 W. R. C.
R. 70 VII, 461
Dyer v. C. M. & St. P. R. Co.,
1908, 2 W. R. C. R. 621
III, 605; IV, 126, 316, 317;
VI, 11, 12, 623; VIII, 246
Eastern R. Co. of Minn. v.
McCord, 1908, 136 Wis. 249
V, 475; VII, 406
Ebenezer Tel. Co. v. M. L. H.
6 T. Co., 1915, 15 W. R. C.
R. 619 XV, 625
Eden Independent Lime &
Stone Co. v. C. & N. W. R.
Co., 1909, 4 W. R. C. R. 233
VII, 145, 146
Cases Cited
717
Vol. and Pages
Eden Independent l.ime &
Stone Co. v. G. & N. W. R.
Co., 1910, 5 W. R. G. R.
110 VII, 146
Edgerton v. Brownlow, 1853,
4 H. of L. Cases 1 XV, 798
Edw. Hines Lbr. Co. v. C. St.
P. M. & O. R. Co., 1908, 2
W. R. G. R. 390 XII, 245
V. G. St. P. M. & O. R.
Co., 1911, 7 W. R. C. R. 14
XII. 193
Eingartner v. 111. Steel Co.,
1899, 103 Wis. 373 II, 124
Elbertson v. C. St. P. M. & 0.
R. Co., 1908, 2 W. R. G. R.
593 VI, 443
Elver V. So.' Wis. R. Co.',"i912,'
9 W. R. G. R. 1 XI, 68, 70, 71
V. , 11 W. R. C. R. 67
XI, 766; XIV, 598
Elyton Land Co. v. Birming-
ham W. & E. Co., 1891, 9
'• So. Rep. 129 II, 61
Engesether v. G. St. M. & 0.
R. Co., et al., 1912, 8 W. R.
G. R. 504 XI, 448; XII, 133
Erb V. Morasch, 1900, 177 U.
S.584 1, 646
Erie v. Erie G. & Mineral Co.,
1908, 78 Kan. 348, 354.. VIII, 25
Express Cases, 1886, 117 U. S.
1 II, 824; III, 349, 562, 567
Ewer V. C. St. P. M. & 0. R.
Co., 1909, 4 W.R. C. R. 331
XIV, 756
Farmer v. D. S. S. & A. R. Co.,
1907, 1 W. R. C. R. 316... I,
518, 618, 661; II, 626; IV,
125, 318; VI, 12; XIV, 249
Farmers' Store Co. v. C. St. P.
M. & O. R. Co., 1908, 3 W.
R. G. R. 42 VI, 197
Farwell Go. v. W^olf, 1897, 96
Wis. 10 II, 688; IV, 349
Fay V. M. St. P. & S. S. M. R.
Co.,1907,131Wis.639..XIII, 414
Fergot V. C. & N. W. R. Co.,
1909,4W.R.C.R.248..VIII, 547
Ferguson v. Metropolitan Gas-
" light Co., 1868, 37 How. Pr.
(N.Y.)189. Ill, 143
Ferguson v. Sherman, 1897,
116 Gal. 169 1, 183
Ferguson Saw Mill Go. v. St.
L. I. M. & S. R. Co., 1910,
18 1. C. C. R. 396 XV, 522
FideHtv L. & T. Co. v. Doug-
las, 1898, 104 Iowa 532; 73
N. W. 1039 1, 181
Vol. and Pages
Field V. Clark, 1892, 143 U. S.
649 1, 337
Fielder v. M. K. & T. R. Co.,
1897, 42 S. W. 362 VI, 71
First Ave. Land Go. v. Parker,
1901, 111 Wis. 1 II, 60
Flanagan v. G. W. R. Co., 1868
L. R. 7 Eq. 116 IV, 352
Flavion v. G. M. & St. P. R.
Co., 1909, 3 W. R. C. R. 385
Ill, 390
Fleming v. Montgomery Lt.
Co., 1892, 100 Ala. 657.. ..Ill, 144
Flint & P. M. R. R. Co. v. D.
& B. C. R. Co., 1887, 64
Mich. 350 II, 374
Fond du Lac Water Co. v.
Fond du Lac, 1892, 82 Wis.
322 XV, 629
Forrest v. Manchester, S. & L.
R. Co., 1861, 30 Beav. 40
: IV, 352
Fountain-Campbell Lbr. Go. v.
G. St. P. M. & 0. R. Co.,
1908. 3 W\R. G. R. 63 Ill,
67, 388, 390, 601; IV, 174, 177, 330
Fowler V. Farmer's L. & T. Co.,
1866, 21 Wis. 78 1, 171
Freeman v. M. <fe St. L. R. Co.,
1881, 28 Minn. 443 1, 635
French v. Edwards, 1871, 80
U. S. 511 XV, 264
Franke Grain Go. v. G. & N.
W. R. Co., 1908, 3 W. R.
G. R. 182 Ill, 451
Fullmer v. Wausau St. R. Co.,
1909, 3 W. R. G. R. 520..XV, 247
V. , 5 W. R. C. R.
114 XV, 247
Funk V. St. P. G. R. Co., 1895, '
61 Minn. 435; 63 N. W. 1099
I, 179, 180
Gablowsky et al. v. G. & N. W.
R. Co., et al. 1912, 8 W. R.
C. R. 544 IX, 487; XIV, 704
Galena W. Go. v. City of Ga-
lena, 1906, 87 Pac. 735. VI, 120
Gambrill v. Schooley, 1901, 93
Md. 48 .....I, 116
Gates V. B. & N. Y. A. L. R.
Co., 1885, 53 Conn. 333
I, 636, 754
Geilfuss V. Gorrigan, 95 Wis.
651 XII, 558
Geneva, City of, v. Geneva
Tel. Co., 1899, 62 N. Y.
Suppl. 172 XI, 305, 306
Georgia R. R. & B. Co. v.
Commissioners etc., 1883,
70 Ga. 694 1, 337
718
Cases Cited
Vol. and Pages
Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824, 9
Wheat. 1 1, 323
Gibbs V. Baltimore Gas Co.,
1889, 130 U. S. 396 1, 636
Gilbert v. Dutruit, 1895, 91
Wis. 661 I, 188
Gilbertson et al. v. C. & N. W.
R. Co., 1912, 10 W. R. C.
R. 495 XI, 604
Gillett V. T. M. E. R. & L.
Co., 1907, 1 W. R. C. R. 689
V, 614; X, 339; XV, 345
V. , 1912, 10 W. R.
C. R. 337. ..X, 345; XIII, 478
Gillett, town of, v. C. & N. W.
R. Co., 1912, 9 W. R. C. R.
535 XIV, 799
Gladson v. Minnesota, 1897, -
166 U. S. 427.. ..I, 320, 518, 646
Glaessner v. Anheuser-Busch
Brwg. Ass'n et al., 1890, 100
Mo. 508 ;.- Ill, 49
Gleason v. Goodrich Transp.
Co. 1873, 32 Wis. 98 ...VIII, 117
Gloucester W. Supply Co. v.
Gloucester, 1901, 179 Mass.
365 Ill, 86; VI, 120
Goodwillie Bros. v. C. & N. W.
R. Co., 1910, 4 W. R. C. R.
461 IV, 463; XlV, 719
V. C. M. & St. P. R. Co.,
1910, 4 W. R. C. R. 463
• XIV, 719
Graham & Ward v. M. D. & S.
R. Co., 1904, 120 Ga. 757
IV, 475
Grand Haven, City of, v.
Grand Haven W. Wks., 1899
119 Mich. 652 IV, 297
Grand T. R. Co. v. Mich.
Railroad Commission, 1913,
231 U. S. 457 XIV, 284
Green Bav, City of, v. Brauns,
1880, 50 Wis. 204 V, 490
V. Green Bay W. Co.,
1913, 11 W. R. C. R. 236
XII, 458, 459, 735, 737, 740,
742; XIII, 164
Greenwood v. Freight Co.,
1881, 105 U. S. 13 ..IV, 303
Greer v. Arlington Mfg. Co., %
1899, 43 Atl. 609 II, 115
Grosse v. C. & N. W. R. Co.,
1895, 91 Wis. 482 I, 172
Gulf C. & S. F. R. Co. V.
Helfey, 1895, 158 U. S. 98 I,
305; II, 128; III, 56, 571;
IV, 777; VI, 435
V. Texas, 1907, 204 U. S.
403 Ill, 341; VI, 70, 71
Vol. and Pages
Gulliver v. Adams Express Co.,
1865,38 111. 503 111,565
Gund Brewing Co. v. C. &
N. W. R. Co., 1909, 4 W. R.
C. R. 190 XIV, 756
Gyger v. P. C. R. R. Co., 1890,
136 Penn. St. 96 1, 183
Hagen et al. v. C. & N. W. R.
Co. et al., 1912, 8 W. R. C.
R. 544 IX, 487
Hall v. DeCuir, 1877, 95 U. S.
485 : Ill, 573
Hampe et al v. Pittsburg &
Birmingham Traction Co.,
et al., 1895, 165 Penn. St. 468
.:. ; IV, 474
Handy v. C. & M. R. Co., 1887,
31 Fed. 689 1, 753; XV, 795
Hannibal v. Mo. & K. Tel. Co.,
1888, 31 Mo. App. 23 VII, 446
Harbinson v. Knoxville W. Co.
1899, 53 S. W. (Tenn.) 993
IV, 158
Harmes et al. v. M. St. P. &
S. S. M. R. Co., 1913, 12
W. R. C. R. 552 XIV, 555
Harrington v. Smith, 1871, 28
Wis. 43.. .1, 187; II, 120; HI, 297
Haverhill El. Co.; Appeal of,
1903, 19 Mass G. & El. Lt.
Comm. R. 24 IX, 555-556
Hawkins v. Hoffman, 1844, 6
Hill, 590 VIII, 117
H. B. Stanz Co. v. M. St. P. &
S. S. M. R. Co., 1911, 6
W. R. C. R. 579 XII, 185
Heaverin v. M. St. P. & S. S.
M. R. Co., 1911, 6 W. R.
C. R. 526 XIII, 391
Heidt V. Southern Tel. Co.,
1905, 122 Ga. 474 XV, 613
Heineman Lbr. Co. v. C. M. &
St. P. R. Co., 1912, 9 W. R.
C. R. 281 XII, 245, 765
Hennington v. Georgia, 1896,
163 U.S. 299 1,646
Herndon v. C. R. I. & P. R.
Co., 1910, 218 U. S. 135 ...VI, 623
Hickerson Roller Mill Co. v.
N. P. R. Co., 1910, 4 W. R.
C. R. 395 IV, 793
Higgins Spring & Axle Co. v.
C. M. & St. P. R. Co., 1909,
4 W. R. G. R. 384 VIII, 37
v. , 1911, 8 W. R.
C. R. 36 XIV, 719
Hill et al. v. Antigo Water Co.,
1909, 3 W. R. C. R. 623
IV,308,383, 580;V, 17, 276,
309, 315, 328, 495, 502; VI,
Cases Cited
719
Vol. and Pages
278, 279; VII, 74, 99, 103,
211, 215, 516; X, 119, 123,
147, 216, 240, 241, 742; XII,
300, 462; XIII, 461, 158,
161, 162, 164
Hilton Lumber Co. v. A. C. L.
R. Co., 1906, 6 L. R. A.
• (N. S.) 225 II, 200
Hilton Lumber Co. v. Railroad
1904, 136 N. C. 479 II, 242
Hodges V. W. C. R. Co., 1903,
1 \V. R. C. R. 300
VIII, 506; XI, 448
Homer v. City of Eden Rapids,
1899, 80 N. W. 1912 II, 684
Hooper v. C. & N. W. R. Co.,
1870, 27 Wis. 81 IV, 474
Hoover v. Pennsylvania R. R.
Co., 1893, 156 Pa. St. 220
I, 219, 221; II, 194, 242
Houlton V. Nichol, 1896, ,93
Wis. 393 XV, 798
Howard v. C. St. L. & N. O.
R. Co., 1883, 61 Miss. 194
XV, 604
Hubbard v. Haley, 1897, 96
Wis. 587 II, 689; IV, ,349
HuiTman v. Marcy Mut. Tel.
Co., 1909, 143 Iowa 590;
121 N. W. 1033 X, 561
Hughson v. D. S. S. & A. R.
' Co., 1913, 13 W. R. C. R.
406 XV, 600
Hurst V. N. P. R. Co., 1909,
3 W. R. C. R. 286 XHI, 416
Ideal Lbr. & Coal Co. v. C. M.
& St. P. R. Co., 1909, 4
W. R. C. R. 171
: VI, 580; XIV, 756
Illinois C. R. Co. v. Illinois,
1896, 163 U. S. 142. ..I, 320, 518
Industrial Railways Case,
1914, 29 I. C. C. R. 212..XIV, 277
Ingato v. Christie, 1850, 3 C
and K, 61 XII, 231
In re Alleged Viol. Ch. 610,
Laws 1913, by Lisbon Tel.
Co., 1914, 14 W. R. C. R. 131
XIV, 399, 400
In re Amsterdam J. & G. R.
Co., 1895, 86 Hun. (N. Y.)
578 HI, 290
In re Appleton W. Wks. Co.,
1910, 6 W. R. C. R. 97,
XII, 662, 663
In re Appl. Cedar Rapids, 1892
85'Iowa'39; 51 N. W. 1142...
X, 554
C. M. & St. P. R. Co.,
1911,8 W.R. C. R. 101, 103
XI, 639, 641
Vol. and Pages
In re Appl. C. M. & St. P. R.
Co. et al., 1911, 8 W. R.
C. R. 278 XI, 637
C. St. P. M. & O. R. Co.,
1905, 1 W\ R. C. R. 16
...:.... I, 240; II, 243
City of Madison, 1909,
3 W. R. C. R. 299 IV, 216
— City of Sparta, 1913,
12 W. R. C. R. 532 XIV, 686
— Cumberland Mun. El. Lt.
Plant, 1909, 4 W. R. C. R.
214. ..V, 36, 383, 560, 570; VI, 342
— Darlington El. Lt. & W.
P. Co., 1910, 5 W. R. C. R.
397
Vn7 752 ;" "X, 1 iB7 ; x'll i',' 345, 348
— Farmers Tel. Go. of Be-
town, 1914, 13 W. R. C. R.
540 XIII, 768; XIV,. 432
— Ft. Atkinson W. & Lt.
Gomm., 1913, 12 W. R. G. R.
260 XII, 729, 731, 732
Grand Trunk R. Co.,
1904, 3 Can. Ry. Gas., 438
II, 242
— G. N. R. Co., 1909, 3
W.R. C. R.266 111,291
— Greenwood Mun. Lt.
Plant, 1910, 6 W. R. C. R.
60 XI, 265
— Jefferson Mun. El. Lt. &
W. Plant, 1910, 5 W. R. C.
R. 555 X, 167
La Crosse Gas & El. Co.,
1907,2W. R. GR. 3 II,
138, 146, 671, 690; VIII,
147, 148, 152; IX, 551, 552;
X, 610
, 1911, 8 W\ R. C.
R. 138 X, 116
Lancaster El. Lt. Co.,
1910, 6 W. R. C. R. 53.. ..XI, 265
— Madison W. Wks., 1909,
3 W.R. GR. 299. ..HI, 490; •
V, 560, 579, 746; VI, 94; XI, 219
Manitowoc G. Co., 1908,
3 W. R. G R. 163. ..V, 327;
328; VII, 338, 339; X, 216;
XIII, 328
— Marathon County R. Co.,
1911, 7 W. R. C. R. 392 ...X, 410
— McGowan W. Lt. & P.
Co., 1914, 14 W. R. C. R.
325 XIV, 564
— Men. & Mar. Lt. & Tr.
Co., 1909, 3 W. R. G R. 778
....IV, 308, 383, 661, 706; V,
17,36,45,163,276,309,315,
327, 328, 333, 366, 383, 411,
570; VI, 49; VII, 74, 103,
339, 340, 366, 367
720
Cases Cited
Vol. and Pages
In re Appl. Mineral Point Tel.
Co., 1912, 9 W. R. C. R. 285
XV, 72, 187
, 1914, 15 W. R. C.
R. 70 XV, 183
Mt. Horeb El. Lt. Co.,
1910, 6 W. R. C. R. 44...
XIII, 656, 658
— North Milw. Lt. & P. Co.,
1909, 4 W. R. C. R. 89. .X, 240
Oconto City W. Supply
Co., 1910, 5 W. R. C. R.
691 VII, 498
, 1911, 7 W. R. C.
R. 497. VII, 655; VIII, 56;
X, 584, 781
Ozaukee-Washington Tel.
Co., 1911, 7 W.R. C. R. 428
VII, fel6
—^ People's Tel. Co. of Dane
Co., 1908, 2 W.R. C. R. 518
Ill, 453
People's Tel. Co., 1911,
8 W. R. C. R. 92 XI, 501
— Pewaukee-Sussex Tel.
Co., 1909, 3 W. R. C. R. 420
VII, 476
— Sevastopol F. Tel. Co.,
1914, 14 W. R. C. R. 524
XV, 376
Stoughton Mun. El. Sys-
tem, 1909, 3 W. R. C. R. 484
V 333; VI 49
—' Village of Cashton, 1908,'
2 W. R. C. R. 677 X, 610
— Wautoma & Mt. Morris
Farmers' Tel. Co., 1911, 6
W. R. C. R. 419 XI, 117
Wis. & Nor. Minn. Ry.
Co., 1908,2W.R. C. R. 362,
II, 387, 586; IV, 131
In re Badger Tel. Co., 1908, 3
W. R. C. R. 98, III, 552;XI,
184, 189
—■ Cashton Lt. & P. Co.,
1908, 3 W. R. C. R. 67....V,
220; VI, 118, 120; XV, 363
Charges on Coal by L. &
N. R. Co., 1892, 5 I. C. C.
R.466 1, 214
— C. M. & St. P. R. Cross-
ing near Camp Douglas,
1912, 9 W. R. C. R. 328.!XII, 524
— C. St. P. M. & O. R.
Crossing near Columbia Sta-
tion, 1912, 8 W. R. C. R. 516
VIII, 733
— City Water Co. of She-
boygan, 1909, 3 W. R. C.
R.371 XIV, 637
Vol. and Pages
In re Clinton Tel. Co., 1913. 13
W. R. C. R. 166 XIII, 601
Crossing on C. & N. W. R.
Co., north of Racine, 1912,
low. R. C. R. 618 XIV, 454
on C. & N. W. R.
Co. in Town of Gale, 1914,
14 W. R. C. R. 445 XV, 275
Dodgeville Branch of the
I. C. R. Co., 1912, 10 W. R.
C. R. 572 XV, 450, 452, 453
Eastern R. Co. of Minn.,
1908, 116 N. W. (Wis.) 841
Ill, 280, 291
. — - Ettrick Tel. Co., 1913, 12
W. R. C. R. 744 XIII, 601
Farmers Tel. Co. of Bee-
town, 1913, 13 W. R. C. R.
540 XIII, 768
Fond du Lac W. Co.,
1910, 5 W.R. C.R. 482, VII,
89, 99, 100, 102; VIII, 265;
X, 116, 119, 241
Free and Reduced Rate
Tel. Service, 1908, 2 W. R.
C.R. 521. ...Ill, 445; IV, 373;
VII, 472, 475, 610; X, 541;
XI, 36, 506, 679, 683; XIII,
575; XV, 448
In re Invest. Ashland Water
Co., 1914, 14 W. R. C. R. 1,
48. .XIV, 723, 727, 732, 733, 741
Chestnut Street Crossing,
Eau Claire, 1913, 13 W. R.
C. R. 74 XIII, 628
C. B. & Q. R. Crossing
near Calvert, 1912, 8 W. R.
C.R. 519 XI, 159
C. M. & St. P. R. Co.,
Rates on Sand, etc., 1912,
UW. R. C. R. 98 ...XIII, 384, 472 /
C. St. P. M. & O. R.
Crossing near Columbia Sta-
tion, 1912, 8 W. R. C. R. 516
...XI, 80
Chippewa Valley Ry. Lt.
& P. Co., 1912, 10 W. R. C.
R. 692 XIII, 19
, 1913, 13 W. R. C.
R. 19 XIII, 444
Crossing on line of C. &
N. W. R. Co., in Town of
Gale, 1914, 14 W. R. C. R.
445 XIV, 552
Division St. Crossing in
Dodgeville, 1912, 9 W. R.
C.R. 367 XIV, 121
, 1912, 11 W. R. C.
^ . R. 151 XIV, 121
Express Rates, 1913, 12
W. R. C. R. 1....XIII, 666,_668
Cases Cited
721
Vol. and Pages
In re Invest. Hudson W. Wks.,
1908, 3 W. R. C. R. 138. IV,
300, 301; VI, 92; VII, 644,
680-681; XI, 471; XII, 303;
XV, 547
I. G. R. Crossing in
Dodgeville, 1912, 9 W. R.
G. R. 367 XI, 151, 152
Madison G. & El. Go.,
1911, 7 W. R. G. R. 152
XIII, 259, 260, 261, 263
Milw. Ltg. Rates, 1912,
9 W. R. G. R. 544 X, 610
Mosinee El. Lt. & P. Go.,
1914, 13 W. R. G. R. 712
XIV, 743
In re Iowa Steel Barb Wire Go.,
1887, 1 I. G. G. R. 17 11,241
Kaukauna Lt. & P. Go.,
1911,8\V.R.G.R.409....XII, 189
Madison G. & El. Go.,
1911, 7 W. R. G. R. 152 ...XII, 335
Manitowoc W. Wks. Go.,
1911, 7 W. R. G. R. 71
VIII, 266; X, 116
Men. & Mar. Lt. & Tr.
Go., 1909, 3 W. R. G. R. 778
X, 123, 167, 171, 241
Merrill Ry. & Lt. Go.,
1911, 8 W. R. G. R. 270 ...X, 631
Metropolitan El. R. Go.,
1888, 2 N. Y. Supp. 278. ..IV, 352
Mill St. Ry. Grossing,
1912, 8 W. R. G. R. 122 ...IX, 198
Milw. Lt. H. & T. Go.,
1907, 112 N.W. 663. II, 587, 588
Milw. Southern R. Go.,
1905, 124 Wis. 490 Ill, 51
Milw. Suburban and
Interufban Ry. Rates, 1914,
13 W. R. G. R. 475
XV, 334, 340-43, 349-56,
726, 728, 734, 751
, 1914, 15 W. R.
G. R. 330 XV, 726, 728, 734
Obstructions in the Rock
River at Janesville, 1914,
14 W. R. G. R. 190 XIV, 480
Oconto Gity Water Sup-
ply Go., 1911, 7 W. R. G. R.
497 XIV, 70
Petition Eastern Wis. Ry.
6 Lt. Go., 1909, 4 W. R. G.
R. 127 IV, 134
Physical Gonn. between
Glinton & Bergen Tel. Go.,
1912, 10 W. R. G. R. 598
XIII, 250, 252, 253
Platteville, Rewey &
EUenboro Tel. Go., 1911,
7 W. R. G. R. 608 ...X, 535, 541
Vol. and Pages
In re Proposed Advances in
Freight Rates, 1903, 9 I. G.
G. R. 382 V, 221
Proposed Extension of
Lines of Glinton Tel. Go.,
1913, 13 W. R. G. R. 166...
XIV, 399
of Lines of Ettrick
Tel. Go., 1913, 12 W. R.
G. R. 744 XIV, 399
— of Lines of West
Kewaunee & Western Tel.
Go., 1914, 14 W. R. G. R.
219 XIV, 399
— Racine Water Go., 1913,
10 W. R. G. R. 543 XIII, 31
— Rates on Gonstruction
Material, 1906, 1 W. R. G.
R.210 VII, 6
— Rates on Live Stock,
1907, 1 W. R. G. R. 778
Ill, 513; VII, 136, 137
— Rates on Milk and Gream
1908, 2 W. R. G. R. 450. ..Ill, 426
— Rates on Pulp Wood,
1908, 2 W.R. G. R. 168
VIII, 105-105, 114, 548; IX,
112, 113, 121, 124, 128, 487;
XI, 366, 368, 370, 378, 391,
394, 395
— Refusal of Service by
Madison Gas & El. Go.,
1914, 13 W. R. G. R. 518...
XV, 411
— St. Louis Millers' Assn.,
1887, 1 I. G. G. R. 20 II, 241
— Service of T. M. E. R. &
L. Go. in Milw., 1913, 13
W. R. G. R. 178. ..XIV, 790,
791, 792; XV, 336, 594, 595, 737
— Standards for G. & El.
Service, 1908, 2 W. R. G. R.
632....IV, 743;V, 87, 88, 169,
704; VI, 323; VIII, 271-272;
X, 630, 631; XIII, 5, 637,
642; XII, 418, 432, 570; XIV, 356
, 1913, 12 W. R. G.
R. 418. ...XII, 573, 576; XIII,
644, 645; XIV, 353, 356,
378; XV, 136, 384
Standards for Telephone
Service, 1914, 15 W. R. G. R.
1....XV, 52, 102, 153, 154, 376,
377, 561, 580, 581, 584, 624
— Suspension of Western
Glassification 51, 1912, 25
I. G. G. R. 442
XI, 522, 524, 528, 531
— The Canadian Freight
Assn. & Industr. Gorp.,
1904, 3 Gan. Ry. Gase 427..II, 242
722
Cases Cited
Vol. and Pages
In re T. M. E. R. & L. Co. et
al., 1912, 9 W. R. C. R. 541
X, 613; XII, 587
Transportation of Salt,
1904, 10 I. G. C. R. 148. .11, 295
Unlawful Rates on Cotton
by the K. C. M. & B. R. Co.,
1899, 8 I. C. C. R. 121
I, 215; II, 241
— Washington S. R., 1889,
115 N. Y. 442 1, 184
Wis. C. R. Co., Charge on
Constr. Material for Mfg.
Plants, 1906, 1 W. R. C. R.
210 I, 242; II, 243
Interborough Rapid Transit
Co. V. City of New York,
et al., 1905, 95 N. Y. Supp.,
886 IV, 351
Interstate Com. Com. v. B. &
O. R. Co., 1890, 43 Fed. 37
I, 5, 12, 216; II, 244
V. , 1892, 145 U. S.
263 1, 13, 217, 501; II, 194
V. C. B. & Q. R. Co., 1902,
186 U. S. 320... VI, 71
— V. Louis. & Nash. R. R.,
1913, 227 U. S. 88 XI, 539
V. Railway Co., 1897,
167U. S. 479 1,337
Irvin V. Rushville Co-Opera-
tive Tel. Co., 1903, 161 Ind.
524 IV,157
Jack V. Williams, 1902, 113
Fed. 823. ..IV, 762-763; XV, 820
V. , 1906, 145 Fed.
281 IV, 762; V, 277
Jacksonville M. P. R. & N. Co.
V. Hooper, 1896, 160 U. S.
514 IV,352
Jacobson v. W. M. & P. R. Co.,
1898, 74 N. W. 893 1, 83
Jamestown v. C. B. & N. R.
Co., 69 Wis. 648 XIV, 447
Janes v. City of Racine et al.,
1913, 155 Wis. 1; 143 N. W.
707 XIII, 31
Janesville, City of, v. Janesville
W. Co., 1911, 7 W. R. C. R.
628, VIII, 362; X, 393; XI,
471; XIV; 692, 693,694
Janesville Water Co. v. City of
Janesville et al., 1914, 156
Wis. 655 XV, 119
Jefferson Ice Co. v. C. & N.
W. R. Co., 1908, 2 W. R. C.
R. 431 IV, 797
Joannes Bros. Co. v. C. M. &
St. P. R. Co., 1909, 3 W. R.
C. R. 422 Ill, 592, 622
Vol. and Pages
John Hoffman & Sons Co. v.
C. M. & St. P. R. Co. et al.,
1912, 9 W. R. C. R. 530..XIII, 322
Johns-Manville Co. v. C. M. &
St. P. R. Co., 1909, 4 W. R.
C. R. 114 VIII, 17; XIV, 756
Johnson v. L. R. Co., 1874,
10 Bush. 231 1,185
Jones V. Wis. Ry. Lt. & P. Co.,
1914, 14 W. R. C. R. 518...
XV, 175
Jones Lbr. Co. v. C. & N. W.
R. Co., 1907, 1 W. R. C. R.
520 1, 613; VII, 782
Joplin W. Wks. Co. v. Joplin,
1903, 177 Mo. 496 VIII, 679
Kaiser Lbr. Co. v. C. St. P. M.
& 0. R. Co., 1910, 5 W. R.
C.R.196....VIII,17;XI,725;
XIV, 756
Kansas ex rel. v. D. C. M. &
T. R. Co. et al., 1894, 53
Kan. 329 IV, 763
Katzenberger v. Lawo, 1891,
90Tenn. 235 ...I, 184
Kaufmann & Co. v. Wis. & N.
R. Co., 1911, 6 W. R. C. R.
497 XI, 709
Kaukauna Elec. Lt. Co. v.
Kaukauna, 1902, 114 Wis.
327 II, 685
Keene v. The Borough of
Bristol, 1856, 26 Pa. St. 46
X, 553
Kellogg V. Citizens Ins. Co.,
1896, 94 Wis. 554 II, 115
Kemp et al. v. C. B. & Q. R.
Co., 1909, 3 W. R. C.R. 350
....IV, 316; VIII, 245; XIII, 526
Kenfield & Lamoreaux v. C. St.
P. M. & 0. R. Co., 1910, 4
W. R. C. R. .465 VI, 206
Kennayde v. Pacific R. Co.,
1870, 45 Mo. 258 II, 122
Kennebec W. Dist. v. Water-
ville, 1902, 97 Me. 185... Ill,
85; V, 223, 224; VI, 120;
. VIII, 26
Kenosha El. Ry. Co. v. Ke-
nosha G. & El. Co., 1911, 8
W. R. C. R. 119 IX, 551
Kentucky & Indiana Bridge
Co. V. L. & N. R. Co., 1899,
37 Fed. 567..; IV, 473; V, 424
Keogh Excelsior Mfg. Go. et al.
V. C. M. & St. P. R. Co.,
1908, 2 W. R. C. R. 717..XI, 135
Kiel Wooden Ware Go. v. G.
M. & St. P. R. Co., 1909, 3
W. R. C. R. 597 IV, 482
Cases Cited
723
Vol. and Pages
King V. Dickenson, 1 Saund.
135 II, 122
Kinnavey v. Terminal R.
Assn., 1897, 81 Fed. 802. ..II, 122
Kirwin et al. v. City of Dar-
lington, 1910, 6 W. R. C.
R. 26 VI, 408; X, 657
Knapp V. I. C. R. Co. et al.,
1910, 5 W.R. C. R;176....X,
573, 575, 576, 577, 582, 583;
• XV, 450
Koch V. Pa. R. Co. et al., 1905,
10 I. C. C. R. 675. .II, 200, 241
Koenig v. T. M. E. R. & L.
Co., 1912, 10 W. R. C. R.
337 Xiri, 478
et al. V. T. M. E. R. & L.
Co. et al., 1912, 10 W. R.
C. R. 337. ...XV, 344, 733,
750, 751
La Crosse City Ry. Co. v. Hig-
bee, 1900, 107 Wis. 389....XV, 661
La Crosse Mfrs. & J. U. v. C.
M. & St. P. R. Co. et al.,
1888, 1 I. C. C. R. 629. ..II, 241
La Crosse W. Power Co. v. C.
St. P. M. & O. R. Co., 1910,
4 W. R. C. R. 412 VI, 174
Ladysmith, City of, v. M. St.
P. & S. S. M. R. Co., 1913,
11 W. R. C. R. 325 XI, 554
Lake Shore & M. S. R. Co. v.
C. S. & C. R. Co., 1876, 30
Ohio St. 604 II, 377
V. Ohio, 1899, 173 U. S.
285 1, 79, 335, 646
V. Smith, 1899, 173 U.
S.684 1,5,79,320,518;
III, 333; IV, 762
Lake St. El. R. Co. v. Ziegler,
1890, 99 Fed. 114 II. 61
Lamar W. & El. Lt. Co. v. La-
mar, 1897, 140 Mo. 145....
VIII. 679
Lamb v. Eastern Wis. Ry. &
Lt. Co., 1911, 6 W.R. C. R.
473 X, 167
Lang V. City of La Crosse et al.,
1909, 3 W. R. C. R. 292 IV,
761; XIV, 522, 714; XV, 659
Laning-Harris Coal etc., Co. v.
A. T. & S. F. R. Co., 1907,
12 1. C. C. R.479 VI, 71
Laona & N. R. Co. v. M. St.
P. & S. S. M. R. Co., 1912,
24 I. C. C. R. 639 XII, 763
Laun V. C. M. & St. P. R. Co.,
1910, 6 W. R. C. R. 5 .. .XIV. 249
Laurel Cotton Mills v. G. & S.
I. R. Co., 1904, 37 So. 134. 1, 215
Vol. and Pages
Laurel Cotton Mills Co. v.
G. & S. I. R. Co., 84 Miss.
339; 66 L. R. A. 433 II, 242
Laursen et al. v. M. St. P. &
S. S. M. R. Co., 1913. 11 W.
R. C. R. 627 XIV, 555
Leonard Coon et al. v. W. C. R.
Co., 1907, 1 W. R. C. R. 724
I, 722; II, 1,355
Leverett v. M. G. A. R. Co.,
1895, 96 Ga. 385.. I, 761
Liberty v. W. C. R. Co., 1906,
1 W. R. C. R. 139 1, 537
Lieberman v. C. & S. S. R. T.
Co.. 1892, 141 111. 140 1, 184
Lienemann v. C. M. & St. P.
R. Co., 1907. 2 W. R. C. R.
88 IV, 169; VII, 768
Light & Power Co. v. Hobbs,
1904, 72 N. H. 531 XV, 790
Lincoln S. R. Co. v. McClel-
lan, 1898, 54 Neb. 672 1, 183
Lindemann v. Rusk et al.,
1905, 125 Wis. 210 Ill, 86
Linden Land Co. v. T. M. E.
R. & L. Co., 1900, 107 Wis.
493 II, 689; XV, 664
Lindsay Brothers v. C. M. &
St. P. R. Co., 1908, 3 W. R.
C. R. 114 Ill, 518, 597
Listman Mill Co. v. C. M. &
St. P. R. Co., 1898, 8 I. C.
C. R. 47 II, 200
Lockport Lt. Ht. & P. Co. et
al.. In re Matter of, 1907,
1 P. S. C. R. (2nd. Dist. N.
Y.), 12 IX, 552-553
Loehr v. C. M. & St. P. R. Co.,
1906, 1 W. R. C. R. 34 II, 67
Loftus-Hubbard Elevator Co.
V. W. C. R. Co. 1906, 1 W.
R.C.R.91....II,762; 111,512;
VI, 572
London & N. W. R. Co. v.
Price & Son, 1883, L. R. 11
Q. B. D. 485 IV, 352
Long Branch Comm. v. Tin-
tern Manor W. Co., 1905, 70
N.J. Eq.71 VIII, 26
Los Angeles v. Los Angeles
Water Co., 1900, 177 \J. S.
558 XV, 799
Lothrop et al. v. Village of Sha-
ron, 1912, 8 W. R. C. R. 479
XIII, 8, 9, 10
Louisville & Jeffersonville Fer-
ry Co. v. Kentucky, 1903,
188 U. S. 385 XV, 628
Louisville & N. R. Co. v.
• Commonwealth, 1900, 108
Ky. 628 II. 242
724
Cases Cited
Vol. and Pages
Louisville & N. R. Co. v. New
Orleans Terminal Co., 1908,
45 So. Rep. 962 11,382
V. P. & K. C. Co., 1901,
23 Am. & E. R. Cases, 332...
■ I, 758
V. West Coast Naval
Stores Co., 1905, 198 U. S.
483 XV, 821
Louisville G. Co. v. Dulaney
& Alexander, 1907, 100 Ky.
405 Ill, 142
Loyal Business Men's Assn. v.
W. C. R. Co., 1907, 1 W. R.
C.R. 720 X, 582
Lucas, Town of, v. C. St. P.
M. & 0. R. Co., 1913, 11
W. R. C. R. 592 XII, 703
v. , 1913, 12 W. R.
C.R. 703 XIV, 488
Lyon et al. v. Green Bay &
M. R. Co., 1877, 42 Wis.
538 Ill, 81
Mace Lime Co. v. C. & N. W.
R. Co., 1909, 3 W. R. C. R.
590 Ill, 595
Macrow v. Great Western R.
Co., 1871, L. R. 6 Q. B. 622
VIII, 117-118
Maginnis v. Knickerbocker
IceCo. etal., 1901, 112 Wis.
385 IV, 401, 794
Maiden Rock v. C. B. & Q. R.
Co., 1909, 4 W.R. C.R. 311
VIII, 245, 246
Malochee v. Great Southern
Tel. & Teleg. Co., 1897, 49
La. Ann. 1690 IV, 157
Manitowoc, City of, v. Mani-
towoc & Northern T.. Co,
1911, 145 Wis. 13
VI, 400; X, 12, 335
v. Manitowoc El. Lt. Co.,
1910, 5 W. R. C. R. 360
VII, 375-376; X, 167
Manitowoc Malting Co. v.
C. M. & St. P. R. Co. et al.,
1906, 1 W. R. C. R., 69
I,605;III,482;IV, 197, 198;
V, 671, 673
Manson & Weinfeld v. C. M.
& St. P. R. Co., 1909, 4 W.
R. C.R. 362 VII, 15
Manufacturers' Coal Rates
Case, 1904, 3 Caii. Ry. Cases
438 11,196
Manufacturers' Construction
Material Case, 1904, 3 Can.
Ry. Cases, 427 II,. 196
' Vol. and Pages
Marinette, City of, v. City W.
Co. of Marinette, 1911, 8
W. R. C. R. 334 X, 740
Marion W. Co. v. Marion,
1903, 121 la. 306 VIII, 679
Marshall v. American Express
Co., 1858, 7 Wis. 1, 24
Ill, 562, 566
Marshfield v. Wis. Tel. Co.,
1899, 102 Wis. 604, 610...
:....VII, 445; XI, 303-304
Martin v. C. B. & Q. R. Co.
et al., 1888, 2 I. C. C. R. 25
II, 241
Marvin v. Anderson, 1901, 111
Wis. 387 11,587
Massachusetts L. & T. Co. v.
Hamilton, 1898, 88 Fed. 588
I, 182
Matter of Amsterdam, J. & G.
R. Co., 1895, 86 Hun. 578....
II, 691
Matter of Attorney-General,
1908, 124 App. Div. (N. Y.)
401 IX, 557
Matter of Wood, 1904, 99 App.
Div. (N. Y.) 334 Ill, 291
— , 1905, 181 N. Y. 93 Ill, 291
Mayer v. C. & N. W. R. Co.
et al., 1911, 8 W. R. C. R.
328 XI, 707
V. I. C. R. Co. et al., 1909,
4 W. R. C. R. 268
VIII, 330, 332
Mays V. Seaboard Airline Ry.
Co., 1906, 75 So. Car. 455...
XV, 420
McCall V. Chamberlain, 1861,
13 Wis. 637 1, 635
McChesney v. Hyde Park,
1894, 151 111. 634 VIII, 26
McDermott v. Davidson, 1845,
1 How. Prac. 194 II, 587
McFarland v. C. & N. W. R.
Co., 1906, 1 W. R. C. R. 248
I, 537, 661; II, 346
McGowan v. Rock County
Tel. Co. et al., 1914, 14 W.
R. C. R. 529 XV, 379
McGowan v. W. & W. R. Co.,
1886, 95 N. C. 417 IV, 350
McGrath v. D. M. & M. R. Co.
1885, 24 N. W. 854 1. 170
McGrew v. The M. P. Ry. Co.,
1893, 114 Mo. 210 II, 122,
McKinley Tel. Co. v. Cum-
berland Tel. Co., 1913, 152
Wis. 359 XV, 501
McMillan et al. v. C. & N. W.
R. Co. et al., 1914, 13 W. R.
C.R. 679 XV, 228
/
Cases Cited
725
Vol. and Pages
McAIillan v. C. M. & St. P. R.
Co., 1912, low. R.G.R. 556
XIII, 683.
McNeill V. So. Ry. Co., 1906,
202U. S. 543 VI, 71
Medford Fruit Package Co. v.
\V. C. R. Co. et al., 1906,
1 W. R. C. R. 44 Ill, 512
Memphis & L. R. R. Co. v.
Dow, 1887, 120 U. S. 287. ..II, 61
Menasha Paper Co. v. C. M. &
St. P. R. Co. et al., 1909,
3 W. R. C. R. 620
VI, 183; XI, 273
V. M. St. P. & S. S. M. R.
Co., 1909, 4 W. R. C. R. 360
IX 38
V. WT CrR." Co., 1908, '
2 W. R. C. R. 300 II, 609
Menasha Wooden Ware Co. v.
W. C. R. Co., 1908, 2 W. R.
C. R. 589 ...II, 702; III, 56,
64; IV, 194; XI, 64; XIV, 627
Merchants & Mfrs. Assn. of
Milw. V. Wells Fargo & Co.
et al., 1913, 12 W. R. C. R. 1
XIII, 666, 668; XIV, 817
Merrill, City of, v. Merrill Ry.
& Lt. Co., 1910, 5 W. R. C.
R. 418 XIV, 149
Merrill Wooden Ware Co. v.
C. M. & St. P. R. Co., 1908,
3 W. R. C. R. 54. ..Ill, 469,
571; IV, 209, 776; V, 292,
646; VI, 217, 435; XIV, 627;
XV, 179
Merryman v. C. G. W. R. Co.,
1907, 113 N. W: (la.) 357...
IV, 140
Messenger v. Pennsylvania R.
Co., 1873, 36 N. J. L. 407;
affirmed 37 N. J. 531 1, 754
Metropolitan City R. Co. v.
Chi. W. Div. R. Co., 1877,
87 111., 317 XV, 628
Meyer v. Rib Lake Lbr. Co.
et al., 1909, 4 W. R. C. R.
178 XII, 232, 233, 234
Meyer et al. v. Sheboygan G.
Lt. Co., 1912, 9 W. R. C. R.
439 XI, 311, 315
Middlessex R. Co. v. Boston
etc. R. Co., 1874, 115 Mass.
347 1,635
Milvale v. Railroad Co., 1890,
131Pa. St. 1 1,184
Milwaukee, City of, v. C. M. &
St. P. R. Co. et al., 1912,
9 W. R. C. R. 193 XI, 344
V. , 1907, 1 W. R. C.
R. 662 IX, 21;X, 9
Vol. and Pages
Milwaukee, City of, v. C. M. &
St. P. R. Co. «t al., 1912,
8 W. R. C. R. R. 295. ..VIII,
536; X, 355; XIII, 38
V.T.M.E.R.&L.C0.1912,
10W.R.C.R.1..X, 312,313,
318, 325-327, 332-334, 347,
348, 356, 363, 367, 739, 742,
743, 745, 747; XI, 24, 29, 338,
430; XII, 609; XIII, 38-40,
42, 43, 45, 50, 51, 52-58, 60-
63, 65, 66, 488, 489; XIV, 38
-, 1913, 11 W. R. C.
R. 338 ...XI, 430; XIII, 273, 274
Milw. & St. P. R. Co. v., Brd.
of Supervisors of Crawford
Co., 1871, 29 Wis. 116 1, 624
, V. Milwaukee, 1874, 34
Wis. 271 1, 625
Milw. E. R. & L. Co., The, v.
City of Milwaukee, 1898, 87
Fed. Rep. 577....X, 1 1 , 22, 23,
65, 81; XV, 748
v. Milwaukee Northern
Ry. Co., 1913, 13 W. R. C.
R. 268.. ..XIII, 302, 303, 306, 307
Milw. Sand Stone Co. v. C. &
N. W. R. Co., 1913, 13 W.
R. C. R. 671 XIII, 670
Milwaukee Southern R. Co.,
In re, 1905, 124 Wis. 490.III, 51
Milwaukee-Waukesha B r w g.
Co. V. C. & N. W. R. Co.,
1910, 5 W\ R. C. R. 546
VI, 518, 519; XIII, 530
Minneapolis & St. L. R. Co. v.
Minnesota,. 1902, 186 U. S.
257...:... I, 85, 86, 339; II, 294
Minneapolis St. P. & S. S. M.
R. Co. V. Menasha Wooden-
ware Co., 1914, 159 Wis. 130;
150 N. W. 411 ..XV, 814
V. Railroad Comm. of
Wis., 1908, 136 Wis. 146....IV,
62, 119, 139, 624, 625; VI,
,569; VII, 146
Minneapolis Threshing Ma-
chine Co. V. C. St. P. M. & O.
R. Co., 1909, 17 I. C. C. R.
189 VI, 71
Minnesota Canal & Pr. Co. v.
Koochicking Co., 1906, 97
Minn. 429 XV, 789
Mississippi R. Com. v. I. C.
R. Co., 1906, 203 U. S. 335
...I 321, 518, 646, 316; IV, 125
Missouri K. & T. R. Co. v.
Bowles, 1897, 1 Ind. Ter. 250
Ill, 56, 571; IV, 777; VI, 435
V. Love, 1910, 177 Fed.
493 VI, 120, 121
726
Cases Cited
Vol. and Pages
Missouri, K. & T. R. Co. v.
Norfolk, 1909, 25 Okla. 325
VIII, 246
Missouri P. R. Co. v. Larabee
. Flour Mills Co., 1909, 211
U.S. 612 VI, 70
V. Nebraska, 1896, 164
U. S. 403 XV, 420
V. -, 1910, 217 U. S.
196 XV, 420
Monongahela v. Monongahela
E. L. Co., 1892, 4 Am. El.
Cases, 53 VII, 445
Monroe W. Wks. Co. v. Mon-
roe, 1901, 110 Wis. 11,
VIII, 677,678; XV, 629
Morgan v. M. St. P. & S. S.
M. R. Co., 1912, 9 \V. R. C.
R. 165 XIII, 373
Morris et al. v. C. M. & St.
P. R. Co., 1913, 12 W. R.
C. R. 560 XV, 603
Mt. Horeb, Village of, v. C. &
N. W. R. Co., 1912, 10 W.
R. C. R.'623..., XII, 496
Mowry v. Farmers' Loan &
^TrustCo.,1896,76Fed.38..II, 60
Mundt V. S. & F. D. L. R. Co.,
1872, 31 Wis. 451 1, 188
Munn V. Illinois, 1876, 94 U.
S. 113 1,77,334,335,336,
640, 642, 643, 644, 645
Mutual Union Teleg. Co. v.
Chicago, 1883, 16 Fed. 309
...VII, 449
Nash. etc. R. Co. v. Alabama,
1888, 128 U. S. 96 1, 646
National Foundry & Pipe
Works V. Oconto Water Co.,
1892, 52 Fed. 29 II, 60
National Mfg. Co. v. I. C. R.
Co. et al., 1912, 9 W. R. C.
R.509 XV, 422
National Travelers Assn. v.
Wis. Tel. Co. et al., 1910, 5
W. R. C. R. 678 VI, 432
National W. Wks. Co. v.
Kansas City, 1894, 62 Fed.
853 Ill, 86; VI, 120
Neenah, City of, v. Wis. T. L.
H. &. P. Co., 1910, 4 W. R.
C. R. 471 VI, 402
Neenah v. Wis. T. L. H. & P.
Co., 1911,7 W.R. C. R. 477
VIII, 252
Nelson et al. v. N. P. R. Co.,
1911, 7 W. R. C. R. 764
VIII, 685
V. -, 1912, 8 W. R.
C. R. 685 X, 508
Vol. and Pages
New Eng. E. Co. v. O. S. R.
Co., 1896, 75 Fed. 162 1, 182
New Jersey Steam Navigation
Co. V. Merchants' Bank,
1848, 47 U. S. 344 Ill, 562
New York v. Squire, 1892, 145
U. S. 175 XI, 304, 305
New York Brd. of Trade &
Tr'n et al. v. P. R. Co. et
al., 1891, 4 I. C. C. R. 447....
I, 215, 216
New York C. & H. R. R. Co.
V. A. I. E. R. Co., 1904, 178
N. Y. 75 Ill, 291
V. B. & W. E. R. Co.,
1904, 89 N. Y. Supp. 418....
Ill, 291
New York, City of, v. Inter-
borough Rapid Transit Co.,
1907, 104 N. Y. Supp. 157
IV, 351, 352, 353
New York ex rel. Penn. R. Co.
V. Knight, 1904, 192 U. S. 21
VI, 70, 72
New York, N. H. & H. R. Co's
Appeal, 1902, 75 Conn. 264
I, 762
V. Int. Com. Com., 1906,
200 U. S. 361 II, 295
V. New York, 1897, 165
U. S. 628...... I, 646
Newburyport W. Co. v. New-
buryport, 1897, 168 Mass.
541 VI, 120
Nichols V. HaUiday, 1871, 27
Wis. 406 1, 186
Noble et al. v. C. St. P. M. &
O. R. Co., 1907, 1 W. R..C.
R. 767 II, 601; VI, 444
Nolan V. N. Y. N. H. & H. R.
Co., 1876, 41 N. Y. Sup. Ct.
541 XV, 604
Norton v. Peck, 1854, 3 Wis.
714 X, 551
Northern Hardwood Lbr. Co.
V. N. P. R. Co., 1907, 2 W.
R. C. R. 37. II, 437, 438
Northern Hemlock & Hard-
wood Mfrs. Ass'n v. C. &
N. W. R. Co., 1913, 12 W.
R. C. R. 241, XIV, 625, 630;
XV, 646, 647
Northwestern Fuel Co. v. Lee,
1899, 102 Wis. 426 II, 587
Northwestern Tel. Exch. Co.
V. City of Minneapolis, 1900,
81 Minn. 140....VII, 447-448;
XI, 303
N. W. Warehouse Co. v.
Oregon Ry. & Navig. Co.,
1903, 32 Wash. 218 XV, 420
Cases Cited
727
Vol. and Pages
Norwich G. & El. Co. v. Nor-
wich, 1904, 76 Conn. 565....
VI, 120
Oak Grove Farm Creamery v.
Adams Express Co. et al.,
1910, 19 I. C. C. R. 454...
VIII,8
Ogden V. Glidden, 1859, 9 Wis.
46 1, 187
Olcott v. Supervisors F. d. L.
Co., 1872, 16 Wal. 678
1,77,335
Olean Street R. Co. v. P. R.
Co., 1902, 78 N. Y. Supp.
113; 175 N. Y. 468. ..II, 370, 371
Olson V. Mayor, 1883, 56 Wis.
551 ...VIII, 676
Omaha v. Omaha Water Co.,
1910, 30 Sup. Ct. Rep. 615,
218 U. S. 180 VI, 120
Omaha Water Co. v. Omaha,
1907, 156 Fed. 922 VIII, 679
Oregon R. Co. v. O. R. Co.
etc., 1889, 130 U. S. 1 1, 635
Osborn v. Jaines, 1863, 17 Wis.
573...-. VIII, 330
Oshkosh V. Milwaukee & Lake
Winnebago R. Co., 1889,
74 Wis. 534 XIV, 447
Oshkosh Logging Tool Co. v.
C. & N. W. R. Co., 1907,
2 W. R. C. R. 116..:. II, 128;
130, 251, 301, 609; III, 342;
VII, 778
Owensboro Gaslight Co. v.
Hildebrand, 1897, 42 S. W.
(Ky.)351 IV, 156
Pabst Brwg. Co. v. C. & N. W.
R. Co., 1909, 4 W. R. C. R.
173. VI, 580; XII, 185
V. , 1910, 4 W. R. C.
R. 403 XIV, 756
V. Milwaukee 1905, 126
• Wis. 110 VIII, 675
Paine Bros. & Co. v. L. V. R.
Co. et al., 1897, 7 I. C. C. R.
218 II, 391
Parker v. Kane, 1854, 4 Wis. 1
V. 112
Parks v. W. C. R. Co., 1873,
33 Wis. 413. Ill, 81
Patapsco G. Co. v. North
Carolina, 1898, 171 U. S. 345
I, 646
Patten v. C. & N. W. R. Co.,
1873, 32 Wis. 524 IV, 139
Payne et al, v. Wis. Tel. Co.,
1909, 4 W.R. C. R. 1 IV,
308, 375, 383; V, 276; VII,
103, 472; X, 240
Vol. and Pages
Pennington v. P. W. & B. R.
Co., 1883, 62 Md. 95 XV, 604
Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Hughes
1903, 191 U. S. 477 Ill, 574
V. Montgomery Co. Pass.
Ry., 1895, 167 Pa. 62 XV, 660
V. SI. Louis etc. R. Co.,
1886, 118 U. S. 290 1, 635
Pensacola Tel. Co. v. W. U.»
' Tel. Co., 1877, 96 U. S. 1....I, 323
People V. A. & V. R. Co., 1861,
37 Barb. 216 1, 638
V. , 1862, 24 N. Y.
261 1, 636, 754
V. Commissioners, 1896,
38 N. Y. Supp. 528. ..II, 375, 376
— V. 1905, 91 N. Y. ,
Supp. 977; affirmed 184 ^
N. Y. 563 II, 588
V. Harper, 1878, 91
111. 357 1, 337
— V. O'Brien, 1888, 111
N. Y. 2; 2 L. R. A. 255 II, 688
V. Willcox, 1913, 141 N.
Y. S. 677 XII, 662
People ex rel. Delaware & H.
R. Co. V. Board of Railroad
Commissioners, 1908, 110
N. Y. Supp. 862 Ill, 291
V. L. & N. R. Co., 1887,
120 111. 48 1, 636, 6.37, 754
N. Y. C. & H. R. R. Co. V.
Railroad Commissioners et
al., 1904, 92 App. Div.
(N. Y.) 126 Ill, 291
— N. Y. Elec. Lines Co. v.
Ellison, 1907, 188 N. Y. 523
: IX, 557
V. Squire, 1888, 107
N. Y. 593 XI, 304, 305
Steward v. Railroad Com-
missioners et al., 1899, 160
N. Y. 202 Ill, 290
Woodhaven Gas Co. v.
Deehan, 1897, 153 N. Y. 528
XV, 628
Peoples Tel. Co. v. E. R. Co. .
of M. et al., 1908, 2 W. R.
C. R. 822
IV, 349, 392; XV, 35
Peoria & P. U. R. Co. v. C. R.
I. & P. R. Co., 1884, 109
III. 135 1,80
Peoria & S. R. Co. v. Thomp-
son, 1882, 103 III. 187 II, 61
Pfister V. Milw. Elec. R. Co.,
1892, 83 Wis. 86... II, 60
Philadelphia & E. R. Co. et al.
V. C. R. Co. et al., 1866,
53 Penn. St. 20 IV, 474
728
Cases Cited
Vol. and Pages
Pietsch V. Krause, 1903, 116
Wis. 344 II, 60
Pingree v. M. C. R. Co., 1898,
118 Mich. 314 1, 337
Pischel V. C. St. P. M. & O. R.
Co., 1910, 4 W. R. C. R. 783
.• XV, 490
Pittsburg & S. C. Co. v.
Louisiana, 1895, 156 U. S.
590 1,646
Pittsburg C. St. L. R. Co. v.
Keokuk & H. Bridge Co.,
1889, 131 U. S. 371 II, 587
Plattsmouth v. Neb. Tel. Co.
1908, 80 Neb. 460
VII, 446-447
Pleasants v. Rohrer, 1863, 17
Wis. 577 VIII, 330
Plumb & Nelson v. W. C. R.
Co. et al., 1906, 1 W. R. C.
R. 19 1, 74; III, 482; V, 671
Plumley v. Massachusetts,
1894, 155 U. S. 461 1,646
Plunkett V. M. S. S. M. & A.
R. Co., 1891, 79 Wis. 222. ...I, 171
Poor Grain Co. v. C. B. & Q.
R. Co., 1907, 12 I. C. C. R.
423 II, 701;III, 56, 571;
IV, 777; VI, 435
Powell V. Pennsylvania, 1888,
127 U. S. 678 1, 646
Prentiss v. Ledyard, 1871, 28
Wis. 131 II, 115
Prescott V. Tousey, 1884, 50
N. Y. Sup. Ct. 12 1, 116
Price V. State, 1884, 74 Ga.
378 1, 184
Price V. W. & N. R. Co. et al.,
1909, 3 W. R. C. R. 467. ..V, 730
Printing etc. Co. v. Sampson,
1875, L. R. 19 Eq. 462. ...XV, 79*9
Public Service Corp. et al. v.
American Lighting Co. et al.,
1904, 57 Atl. 482 Ill, 143
Pullen V. W. C. R. Co., 1906,
1 W. R. C. R. 27
;....I, 661;VIII,725
Pulp & Paper Mfrs. of Wis. v.
C. & N. W. R. Co. et al.,
1908, 2 W. R. C. R. 168...
VI, 175
Pulp & Paoer Mfrs. Traffic
Assn. v. C. & N. W. R. Co.
et al., 1913, 11 W. R. C. R.
365, XI, 396, 418; XII, 246;
XIII, 736, 741
• v. 1914, 13 W. R. C.
R. 735 XIV, 705; XV, 67
Vol. and Pages
Racine, City of, v. C. & N. W.
R. Co., 1913, 11 W. R. C.
R.740 XIV, 783
V. Racine Gas Lt. Co.,
1911,6W. R. C. R. 228,VII,
350, 352, 354-355, 490; VIII,
201, 258, 488; X, 116
V. T. M. E. R. & L. Co.,
1913, 12 W. R. C. R. 388
XIII, 98
Rafferty v. Traction Co., 1892,
147 Pa. St. 579 1, 184
Railroad Commission Cases,
1886, 116 U. S. 307. ..I, 336, 337
Railroad Comm. of Wis. v. C.
& N. W. R. Co. et al., 1909,
16 I. C. C. R. 85 XV, 219
Railroad Commrs. v. P. & O.
R. Co., 1874, 63 Me. 269... I, 637
Railway Co. v. Fuller, 1873, 17
Wall, 560 1, 645
Reagen v. F. L. & T. Co., 1894,
154 U. S. 362... I, 232, 336,
337; V, 222; VIII, 25
Red Star Steamship Co. v. Jer-
sey City, 1883, 45 N. J. L.
246 Ill, 144
Rhine, town of, v. C. M. & St.
P. R. Co., 1910, 5 W. R. C.
R. 184 XIV, 448
Rhinelander, City of, v. M. St.
P. & S. S. M. R. Co., 1912,
8 W. R. C. R. 719 XIV, 554
V. Rhinelander Ltg. Co.,
1912, 9 W. R. C. R. 406,
XIII, 709, 710; XIV, 495
V. M. St. P. & S. S. M. R.
Co., 1911, 8 W.R. C. R. 105
IX, 112, 129; XI, 394, ^97
— V. et al. 1912, 9 W.
R. C. R. Ill X, 632; XI,
393, 394, 395, 396, 397
-, 1914, 15 W. R. C.
R. 171 XV, 389
Rhodes v. Iowa, 1898, 170 U. S,
412 VI, 71
Rib Lake Land Co. v. Upham
Mfg. Co., 1907, 1 W. R. C.
R. 739.. ..IV, 187, 188, 400,
455, 456, 794; VII, 407; XII,
232, 233, 234
Rice V. Louisville & Nashville
R. Co., 1888, 1 I. C. C. R.
738 XIV, 282
Richardson v. Midland R. Co.,
1881, 4 Ry. and Can. Traffic
Cases 1 II-, 242
Ringle et al. v. C. M. & St. P.
R. Co. et al., 1911, 7 W. R.
C. R. 170, 598 VII, 599;
•IX, 82, 85, 86; XIII, 758, 760
Cases Cited
729
Vol. and Pages
Ripon, City of, v. Ripon Lt. &
W. Co., 1910, 5 \V. R. C. R.
1....V, 383, 492, 563, 569, 574,
577, 578, 621; VI, 29, 40, 141,
241, 360; VII, 89, 233, 306,
310, 311, 367, 369, 480; X,
116, 171; XII, 300; XIII,
104, 105
Robran v. T. M. E. R. & L.
Co., 1898, 99 Wis. 83. .XV, 660
Rochester & S. R. Co. v. Bud-
long, 1851, 6 How. Pr. (N.
Y.) 467, 469 ...Ill, 81
Rochester Savings Bank v.
Averell, 1884, 96 N. Y. 467
: II, 587
Rodolf et al. v. So. Wis. Ry.
Co., 1913, 12 W. R. C. R.
49, 707 XII, 707; XIV, 598
Root V. Long Island R. Co.,
1889, 114 N. Y. 300 XIV, 281
Rose V. Roddis Lbr. & Veneer
Co., 1907, 1 W. R. C. R. 307
..V, 188
Rosen v. C. St. P. M. & 0. R.
Co. et al., 1907, 1 W. R. C.
R. 512 1, 537, 661
RosmiHer v. State, 1902, 114
Wis. 169 VIII, 696
Ross et al. v. Burkhardt Mill-
ing & El. P. Co., 1910, 5 W.
R. C. R. 139.. .VII, 248, 648;
VIII, 614; X, 167, 790
Rousillon V. Rousillon, 1880,
14 Ch. D. 351 II, 845
Rowland & Son v. C. & N. W.
R. Co., 1912, 9 W. R. C. R.
163 XIII, 384
Ruedebusch v. C. M. & St. P.
R. Co., 1913, 12 W. R. C. R.
248 XIV, 93
Rural Tel. Co. v. Bell Tel. Co.,
1911, 12 Can. Ry. Cases 319
* XV, 41
Rushville Co-Operative Tel.
Co. V. Irvin, 1901, 27 Ind.
App.62 IV, 157
Ryan v. C. & N. W. R. Co.,
1899, 101 Wis. 506.. II, 124
St. Charles, Citv of, v. Stookey,
1907, 154 Fed. 772... VIII, 679
St. Louis R. R. Co. v. Trustees,
1867, 43 111. 307 XHI, 416
St. Louis & S. F. R. Co. V. Gill,
1895, 156 U. S. 649
I, 336, 337, 345
V. Gorman, 1909, 100 Pac.
Rep. 647 VII, 723
V. Reynolds et al., 1910,
26 Okla. 804 VIII, 246
Vol. and Pages
St. Louis Hay & Grain Co. v.
I. C. R. Co., 1905, HI. C. C.
R.486 II, 200
V. Mobile & 0. R. Co. et
al., 1905, 11 I. C. C. R. 90...
: II, 241
St. Louis J. & C. R. Co. V.
Trustees, 1867, 43 lU. 303 ....
Ill, 286
Sammons v. Kearney Pr. &
Irrigation Co., 1906, 77 Neb.
580; 110 N. W. 308. ..XV, 791, 796
San Antonio St. Rv. Co. v.
State, 1897, 90 Texas 520,
V, 422
San Diego L. & T. Co. v.
Jasper, 1903, 189 U. S. 439
V, 278
V. National City, 1899,
174 U. S. 739 y, 223
San Diego W. Co. v. San Diego,
1897, 118 Cal. 556 VIII, 25
Sandoval Zinc Co. v. Mineral
Point & Northern R. Co.,
1906, 1 W. R. C. R. 99 ...XI, 647
San Joaquin etc. Irr. Co. v.
Stanislaus County, 1908, 163
Fed. 567 VIII, 26
Sante Fe. P. & P. Ry. v. Grant
Bros. Const. Co., Supreme •
Ct. of Arizona, 1910, 108
Pac. 467, 59 Am. & Eng. R.
R. Cas. 420 ...XII, 231
Savage et al. v. C. M. & St. P.
R. Co., 1912, low. R. C. R.
442 XI, 640
Savannah, F. & W. R. Co. v.
Bundick, 1894, 94 Ga. 775
Ill, 56, 571; IV, 777; VI, 435
Savannah T. & I. of H. R. v.
WilHams, 1903, 117 Ga. 414
; I, 183
Savits V. O. & M. R. Co., 1892,
49 111. App. 315 II, 242
Sawyer & Austin Lbr. Co. v.
St. L. I. M. & S. R. Co.,
1911, 21 I. C. C. R. 464.. .XV, 522
Schaster v. T. M. E. R. & L.
Co., 1910, 142 Wis. 578 .XV, 661
Schicker v. Rockford & Int.
Ry. Co., 1911,6W. R. C. R.
695 X, 167
Schlosstein v. C. B. & Q. R.
Co., 1911,8 W.R. C. R. 242
XV, 603
Schmidt v. G. N. R. Co., 1909,
4 W^ R. C. R. 121
IV, 316; VIII, 246; XIV, 249
Schumacher v. C. & N. W. R.
Co., 1904, 207 111. 199 1, 81
730
Cases Cited
Vol, and Pages
Schwoegler & Kelly v. C. M.
& St. P. R. Co. et al., 1910,
5 W. R. C. R. 287 V. 635
Seamans v. Carter, 1862, 15
Wis. 548 II, 118
Security Nat'l Bank v. St.
Croix Power Co., 1903, 117
Wis. 217 II, 689; IV, 349
Selectmen v. Citizens El. St.
Ry. Co., 1908, 85 N. E.
(Mass.) 419 V,423
Semrad Bros. & Pusch Brwg.
Co. V. C. & N. W. R. Co.
et al., 1912, 9 W. R. C. R.
76 XII, 236
Shasta Power Co. v. Walker,
1906, 149 Fed. 568 XV, 791
Sheboygan, City of, v. Sheboy-
gan Ry. & El. Co., 1911,
6 W. R. C. R. 353
VIII, 616, 617, 644; XIV, 208
V. , 1914, 14 W. R.
C.R.208 XIV, 215
Shepard v. Carpenter, 1893,
54 Minn. 153 VII, 723
Shepard v. Milwaukee G. Lt.
Co., 1858, 6 Wis. 539 ..VI, 156
Sherwood v. A. & D. R. Co.,
1897, 94 Va. 291 IV, 763
Sinaiko Bros. v. C. M. Sc St.
P. R. Co., 1910, 4 W. R. C.
R. 432 VIII, 310; XII, 187
V. -. — , 1910, 5 W. R.
C. R. 426 VIII, 310
Singleton V. S. W. R. Co., 1883,
70 Ga. 464 1, 635
Slauson v. Racine, 1861, 13
Wis. 398 1, 641
Smeaton et al. v. Martin et al.,
1883, 57 Wis. 364 ...X, 550, 551
Smith V. Alabama, 1888, 124
U.S. 465 1, 646; III, 573
Smith V. Birmingham W. Wks.
Co., 1893, 104 Ala. 315 ...III, 145
Smith V. Burns Boiler & Mfg.
Co., 1907, 132 Wis. 177. ...
VIII, 675
Smith V. Capital Gas Co., 1901,
64Pac. 258 Ill, 143
Smith V. N. P. R. Co., 1887,
1 I. C. C. R. 208 1, 12
Smith V. Turner, 1849, 7 How.
283 1,322
Smythe v. Ames, 1898, 169
U. S. 466....I, 5, 78, 232, 233,
335, 336, 337, 340, 346, 480;
IV, 762
Somers, Town of, v. Chi. &
Milw. El. Ry. Co., 1913, 11
W. R. C. R. 581 XII, 377
Vol. and Pages
Sorrell v. Railroad Co., 1885,
75Ga. 509 11,122
South Milw. Fuel & Supply
Co. V. C. & N. W. R. Co.,
1911, 7 W.R. C. R. 1
VIII, 474, 475; X, 372
Southern Express Co. v. Hol-
land, 1895, 109 Ala. 363.. ..HI, 565
Southern P. R. Co. v. Int.
Com. Com., 1906, 200 U. S.
536 , 1,216
Southern R. Co. v. G. I. & C.
Co., 1904, 134 Fed. 82; 202
U.S. 542 1,648
Southern Wis. Cheesemen's
Protective Assn. v. Railway
Companies, 1906, 1 W. R.
C. R. 143 XV, 219
et al. V. W. C. R. Co. et
al., 1909, 3 W. R. C. R. 459
IV, 495, 496, 497
Sparhawk v. Union Passenger
R. Co., 1867, 54 Pa. St. 401
VIII, 527, 529
SparUn v. M. St. P. & S. S.
M. R. Co., 1910, 4 W. R.
C. R.467 X, 491
Sprigg et al. v. B. & O. R. Co.
et al., 1900, 8 I. C. C. R. 443
Ill, 332
Spring Valley W. Wks. v. San
Francisco, 1890, 82 Cal. 286
HI, 145
■ V. ; 1903, 124 Fed.
574 VI, 120
V. , 1908, 165. Fed.
667 V, 124, 225, 278
Sproul V. Pillsbury, 1880, 72
Me. 20 1, 116
Standard Lime & Stone Co. v.
C. M. & St. P. R. Co. et al.,
1912, 9 W.R. C. R. 228....:...
XI, 270, 271
Stanislaus Co. v. San .Joaquin
C. & L. Co.,- 1904, 192 U. S.
201 V, 223
Star Grain & Lbr. Co. v.
A. T. & S. F. R. Co. et al.,
1909, 17 I. C. C. R. 338
XII, 762, 763
State V. A. T. & S. F. R. Co.,
1903, 176, Mo. 687 VI, 71
^"v. Atwood, 1860, 11 Wis.
422. II, 118
V. Campbell, 1867, 32
N. J. Law 309 XV, 604
V. Cargill, 1899, 79 N. W.
962 1,640
— V. C. M. & St. P. R. Co.,
1888, 38 Minn. 281 1, 337
Cases Cited
731
Vol. and Pages
State V. C. M. & St. P. R. Co.,
1908. 117 N. W. (Wis.), 686
/ 111,347,574
V. City of Orange, 1891,
54 N. J. L. Ill I, 116
V. Dousman, 1871, 28
Wis. 541 1, 641
V. D. G. & W. Co., 1899,
76 Minn. 96; 79 N. W. 1032
I, 181
V. F. E. & M. V. R. Co.,
1887, 22 Neb. 313 1, 337
— — V. Fremont etc. R. Co. .
(Neb.), 1887, 1888, 35 N. W.
118; 36 N. W. 305 II, 122
V. G. N. R. Co., 1907,
111 N. W. 289 II, 56
V. Grey, 1893, 21 Nev.
378 (19 L. R. A. 134) I, 116
V. H. & N. H. R. R. Co.,
1861, 29 Conn. 538 1, 762
V. Helena P. & Lt. Co.,
1899, 22 Mont. 391 V, 423
V. Houge, 1888, 71 Wis.
384 X, 550, 551
V. Johnson, 1900, 61 Kan.
803 1,337
V. Milwaukee, 1907, 113
N. W. 41 II, 685
V. Milwaukee Ind. Tel.
Co., 1907, 114 N. W. 108 ..
II, 542, 685
V. Minneapolis & St. L. R.
Co., 1888, 39 Minn. 219. ..I, 638
V. N. H. & N. R. Co.,
1874, 41 Conn. 134 1, 229
V. N. P. R. Co., 1903, 90
Minn. 277 1,754
V. Railway Co., 1887, 32
N.W.409 1,638
V. Railway Co., 1906,
128 Wis. 449 1, 110
r V. Redmon, 1907, 114
N. W. 137 II, 842, 852
V. S. C. & P. R. Co., 1878,
7 Neb. 357 1, 636, 754
V. Sedalia G. Lt. Co., 1889
34 Mo. App. 501, 508 Ill, 143
et al. V. Jersey City, 1889,
52 N. J. L. 65 Ill, 49
et al. V. Trenton, 1872,
36 N. J. L. 79 Ill, 49
ex rel. v. N. P. R. Co.,
1903, 90 Minn. 277 1, 637
Andrews v. Oshkosh,
1893, 84 Wis. 548 X, 550
Ashland Water Co.
V. Wharton, 1902, 115 Wis.
457 XV, 629
Atty.-Gen. v. Frost,
1902, 113 Wis. 623 ...I, 638, 754
Vol. and Pages
State ex rel. Atty.-Gen. v.
Janesville W. Co., 1896, 92
Wis. 496 11,331
Atty.-Gen. v. Pliny
Norcross, 1907, 132 Wis. 534
XIV, 194
Atty.-Gen. v. Port-
age City Water Wks., 1900,
107 Wis. 441 II, 689
Atwater v. D. L.
& W. R. Co., 1886, 48 N. J.
L. 55 Ill, 334
Burbank v. Superior,
1892, 81 Wis. 649 X, 550, 551
City of Duluth v. St.
P. & D. R. Co., 1899, 75
Minn. 473. VI, 685
City of Minneapolis
V. St. P. M. & M. R. Co.,
1906, 98 Minn. 380 II, 382
— Cream City R. Co.
V. Hilbert, 1888, 72 Wis.
184 IV, 303
Davis & Star Lbr.
Co. V. Pors, 1900, 107 Wis.
427 II, 118
Kohler v. C. N. O.
& T. P. R. Co., 1890, 47
Ohio St. 130; 23 N. E. 928
XIV, 281
Lanyon v. Joplin W.
Wks. et al., 1893, 52 Mo.
App. 312.: Ill, 144
Milwaukee St. R.
Co. V. Anderson, 1895, 90
Wis. 550 XV, 629
Minneapolis St. P.
& S. S. M. R. Co. V. Rail-
road Comm. of Wis., 1908,
137 Wis. 80 Ill, 604
N. C. Foster Lbr.
Co. V. Williams, 1904, 123
Wis. 61 ■ Ill, 78
R. & W. Com. V. C.
M. & St. P. R. Co., 1888,
38 Minn. 298 1, 708
R. & W. Com. V. M.
& St. L. R. Co., et al., 1900,
80 Minn. 193 I, 85
R. & W. Com. V. N.
P. R. Co., 1903, 96 N. W. 81
I, 232
S my the v. Milwau-
kee Ind. Tel. Co., 1907, 133
Wis. 588 XIII, 439
Williams v. Samuel-
son, 1907, 131 Wis. 499...
VIII, 696
Wis. Tel. Co. V.
Janesville St. Ry. Co., 1894,
87 Wis. 72 XI, 304
732
Cases Cited
Z'
Vol. and Pa^es
State ex rel. Wis. Tel. Co. v.
Sheboygan, 1901, 111 Wis.
23 II, 542, 685
State Journal Ptg. Co. et al. v.
Madison Gas & El. Co., 1910
4W.R. C.R. 501... V, 17,46,
276, 309, 315, 316, 328, 333,
366, 378, 383, 493. 495, 506,
507; VI, 243, 278, 285; VII,
74, 77, 88, 89, 99, 103, 152,
215, 237, 241, 242, 277, 278,
287, 350, 352, 368; VIII, 187-
188, 488, 613; X, 116, 119,
123, 167, 171, 216, 240, 241,
736, 737, 739, 742; 745, 747;
XII, 480, 609, 614; XIII,
259, 455, 461
State Tax on Railway Gross
Receipts, 1872, 15 Wall, 293
I, 644, 645
Staub V. Van Benthuysen,
1884, 36 La. Ann. 467 1, 116
Stedman et al. v. City of Ber-
lin, ia97, 97 Wis. 505 .II, 689
Steven & Jarvis Lbr. Co. v. C.
St. P. M. & O. R. Co.. 1907,
2W. R. C.R. 131 11,591,
592; III, 64, 388, 390; IV,
330, 361, 773; VI, 206; VIII.
63; IX, 38; XI, 63-64; XIV, 632
V. , 1908, 3 W. R. C.
R. 66 IV, 174, 177*
Stevens Lbr. Co. v. C. & N.
W. R. Co. et al, 1913, 11 W.
R. C. R. 476 XIV, 82, 83
Stewart's Appeal, 1867, 56 Pa.
St. 413 1, 761
Stillwater M. & St. P. R. v.
B. & M. R. Co., 1902, 64 N.
E.511... I, 185
Stolte, Daagel^& Foss Co. v.
C. & N. W. R. Co., 1909,
3 W. R. C. R. 335 ...III, 338, 339
Stone v. Y. & M. V. R. Co.,
1885, 62 Miss. 607 1, 644
Strauss v. American Exp. Co.,
1909, 3 W. R. C. R. 556. ..
XIII, 596
Street Railway v. Cummins-
ville, 1863, 14 Ohio St. 523
XV, 660
Streveler v. Marathon County
R. Co., 1907, 1 W. R. C. R.
831 II, 64, 65, 78; VII, 392
V. , 1907, 2 W. R. C.
R. 64 VII. 392, 396
V. et al., 1912, 10 W.
R. C. R. 409 XII, 171-175
Vol. and Pages
Strickley v. Highland Boy
Mining Co., 1906, 200 U. S.
527 XV, 787
Sullivan v. Thompson, 1868,
99 Mass. 259 Ill, 566
Superior v. Douglas County
Tel. Co., 1910, 141 Wis. 363
XV, 798, 814
Superior Brd. of Trade v. G.
N. R. Co., 1907, 1 W. R. C.
R. 619 1, 657, 659, 763
Superior, City of, v. Douglas
County Tel. Co. et al., 1909,
122 N. W. (W^is.) 1023. ..IV, 300
Swedish American Nat'l Banic
V. Koebernick, 1908, 136
Wis. 473 VIII, 675
Sykes v. City of St. Cloud,
1895, 60 Minn. 442, VIII,
678, 679
Tacoma Hotel Co. v. Tacoma
Lt. & W. Co., 1891, 3 Wash.
316,325 IV, 159
Tate V. C. B. & Q. R. Co.,
1908, 2 W.R. C. R. 348.. ..II,
766; IV, 315; VIII, 245
Teasdale v. C. & N. W. R. Co.
et al., 1912, 9 W. R. C. R. 66
XII, 187
Telephone Case, 1904, 3 Can.
Ry. Cases, 205 II, 844
, 1905, 4 Can. Ry. Cases,
284 II, 847
Texas & P. R. Co. v. Abilene
Cotton Oil Co., 1907, 204
U. S. 426 II, 123; VII, 777
V. Cisco Oil Mill, 1907,
204 U. S. 449 Ill, 599
V. Int. Com. Com., 1896,
162 U. S. 197....I, 216, 221 ; II, 244
V. Mugg, 1906. 202 U. S.
242. ..I, 305; II, 123; III, 56,
571; IV, 777; VI, 435
The Mills & Le Claire L. Co.
V. C. St. P. M. & O. R. Co.,
1896, 94 Wis. 336 1, 172
Thomas v. Railroad Co., 1879,
lOlU. S. 71 1, 636
Thompson-Houston Co. v. Si-
mon, 1890, 20 Ore. 60 1, 182
Thurston v. Huston, 1904, 123
Iowa 157; 98 N. W. Rep.
637 VII, 723, 724-725
Tighe et al. v. Clinton Tel. Co.,
1908, 3 W.R. C.R. 117..:
IV, 306; V, 239
Tinkham v. C. & N. W. R. Co.
et al., 1909, 4 W. R. C. R.
329 VI, 200
Cases Cited
733
Vol. and Pages
Toledo A. A. & N. M. R. Co.
V. D. L. & N. R. Co., 1886,
62 Mich. 564 II, 373, 374, 377
Town of Elcho v. C. & N. W.
R. Co., 1914, 14 W. R. C. R.
796 XV, 302, 610
Town of Fitchburg v. I. C. R.
Co., 1913, 13 W. R. C. R.
403 XIII, 611
Town of Gillett v. C. & N. W.
R. Co., 1912, 9 W. R. C. R.
535 XV, 302
Town of Madison v. I. C. R.
Co., 1914, 13 W. R. C. R.
608 XV, 108
Town of Richmond v. W. & N.
R. Co., 1914, 14W. R. C. R.
546 XV, 309
Town of Superior v. G. N. R.
Co., 1914, 15 W. R. C. R.
300 XV, 610
Traders & T. U. v. P. & R. R.
Co., 1887, 1 I. C. C. R. 122
II, 241
Transportation Co. v. Parkers-
burg, 1882, 107 U. S. 691
XV, 821
Trostel & Sons v. W. C. R. Co.,
1908, 2 W. R. C. R. 761. Ill, 64
Twenty Second Ward Adv.
Assn. V. T. M. E. R. & L.
Co., 1914, 14 W. R. C. R.
788 XV, 593, 393
Ulmer v. L. R. R. Co., 1904,
36 Am. & E. R. Cases, 724..I, 759
Union Lime Co. v. Railroad
Commission, 1911, 144 Wis.
523 VII, 146
Union P. R. Co. v. U. S., 1886,
117U. S. 355 I, 215
Union Tel. Co. v. Western
Crawford Co. F. M. Tel. Co.
et al., 1912, 11 W. R. C. R.
42 XII, 141; XIV, 569
Union Trust Co. v. A. T. & S.
F. R. Co., 1894, 64 Fed. 992
XIV, 273
United Factories v. G. T. R.
Co., 1904, 3 Can. Ry. Cases
424 IL 242
United States v. Col. & N. W.
R. Co., 1907, 157 Fed. 321
IV, 474; VI, 70
V. Comerford, 1885, 25
Fed. 902... I, 116
V. Freight Association,
1896, 166 U! S. 290 XV, 798
V. Geddes, 1904, 131 Fed. '
452 IV, 474
Vol. and Pages
United States v. Joint Traffic
Assn., 1898, 171 U. S. .505....
I^ 79^ 335
— ^' ' v.' ' ' Morsman, ' "1890, 42
Fed. 448 Ill, 573
V. Open Boat, 1828, 27
Fed. Cas.346 Ill, 506
— V. U. P. R. Co., 1875, 91
U. S. 72 1, 181
V. Union Stock Yards Co.,
1908, 161 Fed. 919 VI, 71
V. Williams, 1880, 3 Fed.
484 .T, 116
United States Express Co. V.
State, 1905, 164 Ind. 196....
111,573,574
Valvoline Oil Co. v. C. & N. W.
R. Co. et al., 1908, 2 W. R.
C. R. 232....III, 364, 365; VII, 6
Van Patten v. C. M. & St. P.
R. Co., 1897, 81 Fed. 545.. II, 123
Vaudreuil Realty Co. v. C. St.
P. M. & O. R. Co., 1911, 6
W. R. C. R. 661 VII, 743, 744
Veneer Co. v. Urbana W. Wks.
1909, 174 Fed. 348 VI, 120
Vicksburg Water Wks. Co. v.
Vicksburg, 1902, 185 U. S.
65 XV, 799
Vidai Y. Philadeiphia, 1 844, 2
Howard 127; 43 U. S. 127
XV, 798
Village of East Milw. v. T. M.
E. R. & L. Co. et al., 1912,
10 W. R. C. R. 358..XV, 733, 751
Village of Spencer v. M. St. P.
& S. S. M. R. Co., 1913, 12
W. R. C. R. 525 XIV, 108
Von Berg et al. v. C. M. & St.
P. R. Co., 1914, 14 W. R. C.
R. 553 XV, 312
Wachsmuth Lbr. Co. v. Bay-
field Transfer R. Co., 1914,
14 W. R. C. R. 253
XIV, 601, 602
Walla Walla v. Walla Walla
Water Co., 1898, 172 U. S. 1
XV 799
Waish'v. a Mr&st'ip. r!
Co., 1877, 42 Wis. 23. .VIII, 531
Washburn v. Washburn Water
Wks. Co., 1904, 120 Wis.
575 XV. 629
Waszkiewicz v. T. M. E. R.
& L. Co., 1911, 147 Wis. 422
XV, 661
Water Dist. v. Water Co.,
1904, 99 Me. 371
V, 223, 224, 278
734
Cases Cited
Vol. and Pages
Water Power Cases, 1912, 148
Wis. 124 X, 382
Waukesha Lime & Stone Co. v.
C. & N. W. R. Co. et al.,
1913, 13 W. R. C. R. 368...
: XV, 479
V. C. M. & St. P. R. Co.
etal., 1912, 9W.R. C. R. 87,
347 IX, 348; X, 439;
XI, 98, 100, 419, 420, 423,
XIII, 40, 369, 370, 380, 381,
382, 383, 472; XV, 480, 485,
486, 649
V. , 1913, 25 I. C. C.
R.515... XV, 523
— V. C. & N. W. R. Co. et
al., 1913, 11 W. R. C. R. 419
XIII, 38
— ^v. M. St. P. &S. S. M. R.
Co., 1912, 9 W. R. C. R. 167
XIII, 384
1914, 13 W. R.
C. R. 471.LXV, 162; XIV,
579, 718, 719, 720
Waupaca El. Lt. & R. Co. v. T.
M. E. R. &L. Co., 1901, 112
Wis. 469 VIII, 676
Wausau Advancement Assn.
V. C. & N. W. R. Co., 1913,
12W. R. C. R. 438.
XIII, 468, 469, 470
-. V. , 1914, 13 W. R.
C.R.772 XIII, 699
V. C. M. & St. P. R. Co.,
1914, 13 W. R. C. R. 527.
XIV, 508, 509
Wausau Box & Lbr. Co. v. C.
& N. W. R. Co., 1909, 4 W.
R. C. R. 335.., IV, 405, 459
V. , 1910, 4 W. R. C.
R.459 XIV, 719
V. C. M.&St. P. R. Co.,
1910, 4 W. R. C. R. 457.
XIV, 719
Wausau Paper Mills Co. v. C.
M. & St. P. R. Co., 1912, 9
W. R. C. R. 400. ..XIII, 690, 692
Wauwatosa, Town of, v. C. &
N. W. R. Co., 1911, 7 W.
R. C. R. 737 IX, 270, 273
Webb Produce Co. v. C. & N,
W. R. Co., 1908, 3 W. R. C.
R.32....III, 2-3, 31,336, 337,
338, 339; VI, 636
Weber et al. v. City of Lake
Mills, 1913, 12 W. R. C. R.
577 .^. ...XIV, 211
Weems Steamboat Co. v.
People's Steamboat ' Co.,
1905, 141 Fed. 454 XV, 821
Vol. and Pages
Weil V. Express Co., 1868, 7
Phila. 88 Ill, 566
Weld V. G. & £l. Lt. Com-
missioners, 1908, 197 Mass.
556 IX, 556
Weldon v. Missouri, 1875, 91
U. S. 275 I, 322
Wellman v. R. Connor Co.,
Co., 1902, 115 Wis. 617 1, 757
Western Indiana Constr. Co. v.
C. M,. & St. P. R. Co., 1911,
8 W. R. C. R. 309 XI, 277
Western Union Teleg. Co. v.
Goddin, 1897, 94 Va. 513,
Ill, 574
V. James, 1896, 162 U. S.
650 1, 645; III, 572, 574
V. Pendleton, 1887, 122
U. S. 347 1, 323
V. Powell, 1897, 94 Va.
268 Ill, 574
Westport, town of, v. C. & N.
W. R. Co., 1912, 9 W. R. C.
R. 218 XIV, 178
West Texas Fuel Co. v. Texas
& Pac. R. Co., 1909, 15 I.
C. C. R. 443 VI, 71
V. , 1910, 17 I. C. C.
R.491 VI, 71
West Va. T. C. v. O. R. P. L.
Co., 1883, 22 W. Va. 600..II, 847
Weymouth v. Penobscot Log.
Driving Co., 1880, 71 Me.
29 XV 791
Whiting v.'S.'&FrD.'L. r!
Co., 1870, 25 Wis. 167
I, 77, 330; V, 421
Wiemer & Rich v. C.& N. W.
R. Co. et al., 1907, 12 I. C.
C.R.462 ..Ill, 61
Wiggins Ferry Co. v. C. & A.
R. Co., 1878, 5 Mo. App.
347 I, 760
Wilcox et al. v. Consolidated
Gas Co., 1909, 212 U. S. 19
V, 225; X, 116
Wiley V. Inhabitants of Athol,
1890, 150 Mass. 426 ...VIII, 679
Wilkes-Barre v. Spring Brook
W. Co. et al., 1899, 4 Lack.
(Pa.) Leg. News. 367
V, 220, 278
Williams v. Mutual Gas Co.,
1884, 52 Mich. 499 IV, 157
Wills V. Carpenter, 1891, 75
Maryland 80 VII, 723
Wilton, Town of, v. C. & N. W.
R. Co., 1913, IIW. R. C. R.
598.. XII, 361
Winneconne v. Winneconne,
1904, 122 Wis. 348 ....II, 118
Cases Cited
735
Vol. and Pages
Winser Coal Co. v. C. & A. R.
Co., 1892, 52 Fed. 716 II, 121
Winter v. La Crosse Tel. Co.
et al., 1913, 11 W. R. C. R.
748....XIV,533,537,539;XV, 37
V. , 1914, 15 W. R. C.
R.36 XV, 380
Wisconsin Box Co. et al. v. C.
M. & St. P. R. Co., et al.,
1909, 3 W. R. C. R. 605,
... IV, 257, 272, 325, 328, 336,
338, 358, 405, 457, 460, 462,
464, 768; VIII, 13; XIII, 532, 533
V. , 1910, 4 W. R. C.
R.768 XIV, 719
Wisconsin Coal Co. v. W. C.
R. Co., 1909, 3 W. R. C. R.
339 Ill, 424
Wisconsin Lakes Ice & Cartage
Co. V. C. & N. W. R. Co.,
1912, 9 W. R. C. R. 101
XI, 62, 63, 171
Wisconsin M. & P. R. Co. v.
Jacobsen, 1900, 179 U. S. 287
1,84,335, 595
Wis. Pulp & Paper Mfrs. v.
C. & N. W. R. Co. et al.,
1911, 6 W. R. C. R. 436. IX, 398
Wis. Retail Lbr. Dealers Assn.
V. C. & N. W. R. Co. et al.,
1909, 3 W. R. C. R. 471....V,
716, 718, 719; VI, 529; VII,
55; VIII, 33, 127; XIII, 740;
XIV, 824
Wis. Tel. Co. V. City of Green
Bay, 1908,3W. R. C. R. 147
XI, 301
V. City of La Crosse, 1911,
7 W. R. C. R. 435..XI, 300, 303
Vol. and Pages
Wis. Tel. Co. V. Milw. 1905,
126 Wis. 1 II, 542
Wltbeck V. Holland, 1870, 5
Barb (N. Y.) 443 Ill, 566
V. , 1871, 45 N. Y. 13
Ill, 562, 566
Wood V. M. & St. P. R. Co.,
1871, 27 Wis. 541 IV, 474
W^orcester City v. Street Ry.
Co., 1905, 196 U. S. 539..XV, 800
Worcester El. Lt. Co. Appeal
of, 1893, 9 Mass. G. & El.
Lt. Comm. R. 23 IX, 554-555
Wright V. T. M. E. R. & L.
Co., 1897, 95 Wis. 29 I, 637, 754
Wright Lbr. Co: v. C. M. & St.
P. R. Co., 1910, 4 W. R. C.
R. 770 VI, 206; VIII, 79
Wyatt V. L. & W. Irr. Co.,
1892, 29 Pac. 906 1, 838
Yellow River Impr. Co. v.
Wood Co. et al., 1892, 81
Wis. 554 XV, 629, 630
York & North Midland Ry.
Co. V. Queen, 1853, 1 El. &
B1.858 V, 423
Younkin v. M. L. H. & T. Co.,
1901, 120 Wis. 477 XV, 661
Young V. R. R. Co., 1889, 33
Mo. App. 509 II, 122
Zehren v. T. M. E. R. & L. Co.,
1898, 99 W^is. 83 XV, 660
Zinc Carbonate Co. v. First
Nat'l Bank of ShuUsburg,
1899, 103 Wis. 131
II, 689; IV, 349
LOCALITIES INDEX
LOCALITIES INDEX
A
Vol. and Page
Abbottsford and Curtiss to Menasha, rates on wood bolts,
legality of ante-dated tariff I 108
Abbottsford, train and station facilities VI 624
Ablemans to Milwaukee, refund on shipments of granite
blocks XIII 669, 671
, North Freedom and Reedsburg to Basco, joint rates
on grain, establishment of I 599
Abrams, adequacy of station facilities and train service XIV 780
Adams, telephone utility, relocation of exchange XV 530
Addison, town of, telephone utility, certificate of public
convenience and necessity XIV 766
Adell to Sheboygan, joint rates on barley established be-
tween the C. M. & St. P. R. and the G. & N. W. R V 668
, telephone utility, extension of line XIV^ 757
Afton, station facilities, adequacy of X'V' jj 404
Alaska from Waukesha, reasonableness of rates on lime XI ij^^ 419
Albany, (first highway north of) railroad crossing, protec-
tection of r X 483
, train service IX 389
Albertville (First ave.), railroad crossing, protection of XII 254
, Chippewa Co., railroad, diversion of line VII 463
Algonac to Sheboygan, refund on shipment of tanbark XI 537
Aliens Grove, train service and station facilities, adequacy of XV 18
Allenton, railroad crossing, protection of X 615
■ , town of, telephone utility, certificate of public con-
venience and necessity XIV 766
Allen ville, Winnebago county, station facilities, adequacy of. .XI 1 1 421
Allis, Milwaukee, station facilities IV 161
Allouez from Connor's Point (Superior), refund on shipment
of lumber II 126
Alma, electric rates, readjustment of II 144
Alma Center, station facilities, stock scales II 102
Almena, town of, (Barron's crossing), relocation of highway,
public necessity of XIV 128
, (1 mile west of) (Strobel crossing), railroad crossing,
protection of XI 621
to Osceola, refund on shipments of grain V 291
from Superior, refund on shipment of salt VI 499
24
738 Localities Index
Vol. and Page
Almena,- station facilities XII 694
, train service IV 467
Altoona, electric rates, flaming arc lamps IX 500
, telephone rates, reasonableness of X 517
Amery to Osceola, refund on shipments of grain V 291
from Superior, refund on shipment of salt VI 499
, station facilities VIII 305
Amherst, town of (Bishop crossing, ^ mile west of Amherst
Jet.), railroad crossing, protection of XV 494
from Milwaukee, refund on shipment of bags IX 182
Anson, town of, telephone utility, extension of lines XIV 510
Antigo to Crandon, rates on lumber, reasonableness of I 611
(Heinemann's Mill), to Port Washington and South
Milwaukee, refund on shipments of slabs and slabwood... VI 222
, telephone utility, extension of line XIV 329
-^ — , water rates and service Ill 623
, water utility, adequacy of service II 627
, water utility, municipal acquisition XIII 157
Apollonia, Rusk county, station facilities VI 526
: , Rusk county, train service, adequacy of XIII 390
Apple River, St. Croix county, franchise to construct water
power dam XV 712
Appleton, proposed interurban line, certificates of public
convenience and necessity ;..... V 466
and Milwaukee (between) certificate of public con-
venience and necessity II 580
, East, Newberry st., railroad crossings, separation of
grades IX 322
, East Walter ave., railroad crossings, separation of
grades ' IX 322
from Wis. points on the C. & N. W. R., refund on ship-
ment of logs and wood XI 144
from Wis. points (northern Wis.), refund on shipments
of pulp wood VI 175
from Arbor Vitae, refund on shipments of lumber VI 209
— — , Combined Locks and Kimberly, from Itasca, rates
on pulp wood, reasonableness of and refund II 250
from Green Bay, group rates on coal VI 436
from Green Bay, coke, refund on shipment IV 171
from Hazelhurst, refund on shipments of lumber VI 209
from Lake Michigan ports in Wis., group rates on coal. VI 436
from Manitowoc, group rates on coal VI 436
from Mattoon Railway points, joint rates V 531
from Milwaukee, group rates on coal VI 436
from Sheboygan, group rates on coal VI 436
, municipal acquisition of water works VI 97
, water rates and service V 215
Arbor Vitae to Appleton, refund on shipments of lumber VI 209
to Blue Mounds, refund on shipment of lumber VI 21
Localities Index 739
Vol. and Page
Arbor Vitae to Vesper, refund on shipment of lumber VI 21
Arcadia, electric rates, reasonableness of XI 216
Arena, telephone utilities, physical connection XV 390
Argyle, telephone rates VI 616
Arkansas, electric rates VI 334
Armstrong Creek from Rhinelander, refund on shipments of
car stakes XIII 84
Arpin from Deans Spur, rates on shipments of fuel wood,
reasonableness of and refund XIV 752
to Neenah, rates on shipments of fuel wood and fence
posts, reasonableness of and refund XIV 707
Ashippun, railroad crossing, protection of XII 119
Ashland county (sec. 32, Ts. 41, north of R. 1, east), railroad
crossing, restoration and protection of I 307
Ashland from Wis. points on C. St. P. M. & 0. R., concen-
tration rates on wood, reasonableness of I 16
from Wis. points on M. St. P. & S. S. M. R.,. rates on
logs, reasonableness of and refund XIV 542
to Berlin, rates on shipments of lumber, reasonableness
of, and refund XIV 823
from Birnamwood and Clintonville, refund on ship-
ments of potatoes VI 667
and Eau Claire, rates on coal, reasonableness of I 767
from , refund on shipment of corn IV 331
to , rates on pulp wood, reasonableness of II 129
to Hayward, refund on shipment of lumber VII 14
from Ladysmith, refund on shipment of paper VIII 78
from Marion, refund on shipment of potatoes VI 667
from Peterson's Spur, refund on shipments of logs IV 193
to Washburn, refund on shipments of wood bolts IV 465
to Webster, refund on shipments of lumber XII 701
, station facihties, use of railroad company's private
dock for public convenience XV 816
, telephone rates IX 489
, water rates IV 273
, water rates and service XIV, 1, 721
Athens to Goodrich, operation of branch railroad IV 455
Athens to Viroqua, refund on shipment of lumber XI 447
and Dorchester, telephone toll rates between Ill 586
and Stetsonville, telephone toll rates between Ill 586
to Goodrich (between), train service, adequacy of I 739
Atkins and Gagen (Siding 234 between) to Crandon, refund
on shipment of logs IX 57
Augusta from Superior, rates on coal, reasonableness of II 593
^, telephone rates II 105
740 Localities Index
B
Vol. and Page
Babcock, train service VI 534
Bagdad to Rothschild, establishment of joint rates and re-
fund on shipment of pulp wood IX 127
Bagley Jet. to Brown's Spur to Peshtigo, reasonableness of
rates on logs, and refund XV 43
from Buda, Hanley, Jarvis, Carlton, and Sycamore,
reduction of rates and refund on shipment of piling XI 108
Bain station, (Spring Brook road) railroad crossing, pro-
tection of XI 557
Baldwin, electric rates XV 409
(Hammond road crossing), railroad crossing, protection
of XIII 76
from Superior, Eau Claire and other points in N. W.
Wis. on C. St. P. M. & 0. R., rates on coal, reasonableness
of : I 767
Bard well station, (two miles west of) railroad grade crossing,
protection of VIII 471
, train servdce and station faciUties, adequacy of XV 18
Barron (sec. line 33^ miles south), railroad crossing, separa-
tion of grades .' XII 686
Barton from Rockfield, reasonableness of rates on lime XIII 38
— -- from Waukesha, reasonableness of rates on lime XI 419
Basco, from North Freedom, Ablemans and Reedsburg,
joint rates on grain, establishment of I 599
Bayfield, town of, Bayfield Co., electric and water service. ...XI 686
from Sunny side, rates on logs, reasonableness of, and
minimum weight XIV 253, 601
to Washburn, rates on logs, reasonableness of, and re-
fund XIV 289
, free storage period, extension of XIV 763
Bear Trap, Bolton, and intermediate stations, from Marsh-
field, Wausau, and intermediate stations, reasonableness
of rates on hay, and refunds on shipment XII 433
Beaver to Racine, refund on shipment of slabs VI 199
Beaver Dam, repairs on dam, necessity for, opinion of Com-
mission on request of company IX 331
(Beaver Dam river), navigable waters, obstructions in
stream XIV 474
, town of. Dodge county, railroad crossing, separation of
grades, overhead bridge IX "471
, (1 H miles east of) (Dutchman crossing), railroad cross-
ing, protection of XI 662
, Juneau-Leipsic road, railroad crossing, protection of IX 381
, (Maple ave. Third st., Mackie st. and High st.), rail-
road crossing, protection of X 474
, Spring St., railroad crossing, protection of IX 523
Localities Index 741
Vol, and Page
Beaver Dam, water rates and service X 661
to Racine Jet., rates on castings, reasonableness of and
refund II 703
from Milwaukee, refund on shipment of foundry
patterns..... VIII 325
from Weyerhauser, refund on shipments and reduction
of joint rates V 655
, municipal acquisition of water utility XIII 169
Beaver Spur to Washburn, reasonableness of rates on bolts,
and refund.....'.. XV 294
Beetown, telephone rates and service XIII 540
, telephone utihties, interference of high voltagQ trans-
mission lines XV 622
Beldenville to Eau Claire, rates on lumber, reasonableness
of and refund ." II 131
Belgium from Waukesha, reasonableness of rates on lime XI 419
Belle Plaine, station facihties, adequacy of XIII 418
Belleville from Madison, railway car service, refrigerator
cars : IX 240
Belhnger and Oilman (siding between) to Stanley, refund on
shipment of posts IX 64
Beloit, electric, gas and water rates and service VII 187
from Ladysmith, refund on shipments of lumber and
reduction of joint rates V 647, 655
from Mattoon Ry. points, joint rates V 531
, telephone toll rates V 300
, water mains, extension of 1X250; V 459, 617
Bennett to Superior, rates on cordwood, reasonableness of II 705
Benton from Montfort Jet., train service, adequacy of X 500
Bergen, telephone utilities, physical connection and toll
rates X 598
, telephone utihties, physical connection XIII 250
Berlin, demurrage chargfes and terminal facilities VI 14
, gas, electric and heating rates XV 121
, heating utilities, thermostats XV 468
from Ashland, rates on shipments of lumber, reason-
ableness of, and refund XIV 823
from La Crosse, rates on dried brewers' grains V 705
from Wausaukee, refund on shipment of wood XI 706
Berry ville from Rockfield, reasonableness of rates on lime.... XI 1 1 38
from Waukesha, reasonableness of rates on lime XI 419
Bibon to Cumberland, rates on logs, reasonableness of and
refund II 700
or Iron River from Lake Nebagamon (between) and
other points from Winnebijou and Campbell's Mill, train
service, adequacy of XV 599
Big Falls and Wis. points on the C. & N. W., except Hunt-
ing, establishment of joint rates VIII 556
Birchwood from Edgewater, refund on shipment of logs IX 482
742 Localities Index
Vol. and Page
Birchwood from Frederic, refund on shipments of logs V ' 643
to Kewaunee, refund on shipment of lumber IV 109
from Raddison, reasonableness of rates on logs V 441
from Winter, refund on shipment of logs IV 106
Birnamwood to Ashland, refund on shipment of potatoes VI 667
Black Creek from Milwaukee, railroad freight service XIII 322
from Crandon and Monico, refund on shipment of logs. VII I 544
from Wis. points (Northern Wis.) on the C. & N. W. R.
reduction of joint rates VIII 544
from Milwaukee, train service, adequacy of IX 530
Black Earth, telephone service IV 111
and Mazomanie,- telephone service between Ill 514
Black River Falls to Vaudreuil, railroad construction, certifi-
cate of public convenience and necessity, application for,
dismissed , VII 741
and Waukesha, rates on shipment of ground limestone,
reasonableness of and refund XIV 579
— — from Vaudreuil, switch connections VI 661
Blanchardville to Wis. points on the Mineral Point division
of the C. M. & St. P. and on the I. C. lines, rates on
wagons IX 509
Bloomer, electric rates and service VI 506
, refusal of electric service XV 612
, right of shipper to switching service Ill 42
, telephone rates IV 259
Blooming Grove, baggage, articles constituting personal
baggage VIII 311
, town of, (Hanchette crossing, 2% miles southeast of
Madison), railroad crossing, protection of XV 45
Blue Mounds from Arbor Vitae, refund on shipment of
lumber VI , 21
to Cudahy and to Milwaukee, refund on shipment of
live stock IX 74
Blue River to Richland Center, refund on shipment of rye VI 178
Boehms to Milwaukee and Sheboygan, refund on shipment
of tanbark XI 537
Bolton, Bear Trap, and intermediate stations, from Marsh-
ficld, Wausau and intermediate stations, reasonableness
of rates on hay, and refunds on shipments XII 433
Boscobel, (Church and Walnut streets. Wis. ave. and Park
St.) railroad crossings, protection of X 423
, (Walnut street) (Wis. ave.) railroad crossing, protec-
tion of XV 296
; station facilities, adequacy of...: XV 403
-, telephone utilities, physical connection and reasonable-
ness of rates XI 32
Bowler to Burlington, refund on shipment of posts IV 329
, telephone rates VII 426
Boyd from Hannibal, refund on shipments of logs Ill 40
Localities Index 743
' 'Vol. and Page
Bradley and Manson to HealTord Jet. and Merrill, rates on
shipment of bolts, reasonableness of and refund XIV 805
Brantwood, Me Cord and Tripoli to Rhinelander, reason-
ableness of rates on wood, and refund XV 171
, train ser\dce, adequacy of X 490
Bridgeport, telephone utility, checking station, establish-
ment of XIV k 568
, telephone rates, reasonableness of XI 42
and Eastman (between), telephone rates XII 140
and Prairie du Chien (between), telephone rates XII 140
Brigham, town of, (Iowa county), railroad crossing, separa-
tion of grades II 70
Brighton Beach and Waverly Beach (between), near Lake
Winnebago, stopping of interurban cars XIV 811
Brill, station facilities, adequacy of XIII 625
Brodhead, electric utilities, standards of service X 630
, electric utility, municipal acquisition of XII 88
, telephone rates II 113; 1X383
, train service IX 389
Brokaw from Wis. points on the G. M. & St. P. R., refund on
shipment of wood XI 417
from Rothschild, refund on shipment of pulp IX 400
from Rothschild, refund. on shipments of ground wood
pulp XIII 690
Brooklyn, telephone rates VI 573
and Milwaukee, interurban rates and car service be-
tween VIII 734
to Milwaukee, interurban car service IX.. 534
from Waukesha, reasonableness of rates on lime XI 419
Brown's Spur to Bagley Jet. and Peshtigo, reasonableness of
rates on logs, and refund XV - 43
Brown town, electric rates, minimum charges XIV 560
Bruce, electric rates, classification of moving picture arc IX 474
Buda to Bagley Jet. reduction of rates and refund on ship-
ment of piling XI 108
Buffalo, town of, Marquette Co., Graham's crossing, railroad
crossing, protection of IX 538
Bunkers^ to Sheboygan, refund on shipment of tanbark XI 537
Burke, station facilities XII 366
Burkhart, (about two and one-half miles northeast of) rail-
road crossing, protection of XI 737
Burlington from Wis. points on the M. St. P. & S. S. M. R.
refund on shipment of logs XI 492
from Bowler, refund on shipment of posts IV 329
from Weyerhauser, refund on shipments of lumber
and reduction of joint rates V 663
Buswell to Wausau, refund on shipment of logs VI 217
Butternut to Glover, rates on shipment of cheese boxes,
reasonableness of and refund XIV 761
744 Localities Index
Vol. and Page
Butternut to Kimberly, cancellation of joint trainload rates
on pulp wood '. VIII 105
to Rockford, 111., refund on shipment of lunjber, legality
of I 300
, telephone rates XV 180
Buttons Bay (Walworth county), switch connections, estab-
lishment of II 431
Byron (300 ft. east of), railroad crossing, protection of XI 95
c
Cadott (Main st.), railroad crossing, protection of XV 596
Caledonia and Racine (between), interurban rates, commu-
tation tickets XIII 475
, town of, interurban railway crossing, protection of X 420
• , town of (Three Mile road), interurban railway crossing,
protection of XII 386
-^ — , town of, railroad crossing, separation of grades X 618
• , town of, (Franksville road) (Three Mile road), rail-
road crossing, protection of .XI 564
from Waukesha, reasonableness of rates on lime XI 419
, station facilities VIII 582
, town of, (Sheriff's Crossing), switch connections,
adequacy of I 716
, train service, adequacy of XIII 732; XIV 581
Calhoun and Milwaukee (between), interurban rates, reason-
ableness of XIII 475
and West Allis (between), interurban rates, reason-
ableness of XIII 475
-, train service, adequacy of XV 638
Calvary to Milwaukee, through Fond du Lac, refund on
shipment of live stock VIII.. 532
Calvert (crossing near), railroad grade crossing, protection
of VIII 519
, (Mormon Coulee road) railroad crossing, protection of ..XI 159
Cambria, town of Courtland, (Railroad street) railroad
crossing, protection of XII 501
, telephone rates and service VIII 92
, telephone rates, reasonableness of XI 499
Cameron, electric rates VI 717
Campbell, town of (North Salem road), }4 niile north of
Grand Crossing, railroad crossing, installation of XV -21
Campbell's Mill, Winnebijou and other points between Lake
Nebagamon to Iron River or Bibon, train service, ade-
quacy of XV 599
Camp Douglas, (2 miles east of), railroad crossings, protec-
tion of IX 328
, (2 miles east), (Orange crossing), railroad crossing,
elimination of XII 524
Localities Index 745
Vol. and Page
Camp Douglas, telephone rates and service > VIII 399
, telephone utilities, physical connection XII 213
, train schedules, adjustment of between connecting
carriers to provide for interchange of traffic IV 238
Campia to Rice Lake, refund on shipment of logs X 564
, station facilities, adequacy of '. X 430
Carlton to Bagley Jet., reduction of rates and refund on ship-
ment of piling XI 108
Carson and Van Buskirk (between) to Superior, joint rates
on logs XIV 703
Carryville from Fairchild, railroad construction, certificate
of public convenience and necessity, granted VII 755
Cascade, telephone rates XIV 808
Casco, telephone rates IX 760
Cashton, electric utility, certificate ,of convenience and
necessity II 677
, municipal acquisition of electric plant ...Ill 67
from Milwaukee, agricultural implements, refund on
shipment Ill 114
, water rates '...XI 410
Cassville (highway near), relocation of highway, public
necessity of '. XIII 86
, train service, adequacy of, speed of trains II 348
Catawba to Oshkosh, refund on shipment of wood VI 669
, station facilities, adequacy of I 53
Cazenovia from and to Wis. points, joint rates VI 693
to Ft. Atkinson, refund on shipments of lumber XII 219
— : — , telephone utilities, physical connection XIV 655
Cecil, telephone utilities, physical connection IX 189
Cedarburg, on proposed interurban line V 466
from Waukesha, reasonableness of rates on lime XI 419
, telephone rates , VII 428
Cedar Falls, Oneida county, from Hixon, operation of rail-
road line, continuation of XII 223
Cedar Grove, Sheboygan county, (Green Bay road), inter-
urban railway crossing, protection of XII 712
Cedarville to Green Bay, refund on shipments of logs...- Ill 386
Charme, switch connections, establishment of II 79
Chase, town of, Oconto county, telephone service, with-
drawal of X 558
Chelsea from Rib Lake, railroad rates VII 401
Cheney, station facilities, adequacy of I 254
Chetek, electric rates II 662; XI 227
Chili to Granton, refund on shipments of bolts Ill 518
Chilton, proposed interurban line V 466
, electric service, adequacy of ...II 326
, Hay ton, Kiel, New Holstein from Manitowoc, joint
rates on barley, reasonableness of I 69
746 Localities Index
Vol. and Page
Chilton, NewHolstein, Kiel, Elkhart, from Manitowoc, joint
rates, establishment of I 19
to Sheboygan, joint rates on barley established be-
tween the d M. & St. P. R. and the G. & N. W. R V 668
, telephone rates V 212
Chippewa Falls, electric rates, flaming arc lamps IX 500
, electric, gas and water rates V 302
from Lublin, fates on logs, reasonableness of and refund II 607
, Menomonee Falls and Janesville from Wis. points,
rates on sugar beets and beet pulp, reasonableness of I 258
Clark county, telephone rates XV 822
Clay Banks, town of. Door county, telephone rates, reason-
ableness of XI 697
Clear Lake to Itasca, double minimum on mixed carloads of
grains and seeds ....V 711
Cleveland, town of, (Rock crossing, about 2 miles north of
Stratford) railroad crossing, protection of XIII 729
Clifton, telephone rates and service VIII 399
, telephone utilities, physical connection XII 213
Clinton, telephone rates Ill 117
— — , town of, telephone utility, extension of line XIII 166
, telephone utilities, physical connection X 598; XIII 250
, water rates XI 496
Clintonville to Ashland, refund on shipment of potatoes VI 667
from Elmhurst, refund on shipment of poles and posts... IX 185
from Galloway, concentration rates on poles and posts.. X 461
, station facilities XII 679
, telephone rates, increase in XV 552
Cobban to Eau Claire, refund on shipments of logs IV 319
to , rates on logs, reasonableness of and refund II 342
to Gilman, refund on shipments of bolts XII 134
— — , station facilities, adequacy of X 383
Cochrane, train service VIII 242
Colby, from Unity, reasonableness of rates, on logs, and re-
fund : : XV 469
Coleman, train service, adequacy of I 720
Colfax, distribution of cars and service XIV 86
to Madison, refund on shipments of stone and establish-
ment of joint rates V 287
to Madison, refund on shipments of stone V 635
Colgate (crossing 1}4 miles north), railroad crossing, pro-
tection of XIII 623
Coloma, telephone rates XIV 594
Columbia, (1800 feet east of), railroad crossing, protection of. XI 79
—^ — Station, point east of railroad grade crossing, protection
of VIII 733
, or Wedges Creek Jet. to "end of track" at Wedges
Creek gravel pit, refund on shipment of construction
material IV 412; VI 173
Localities Index 747
Vol. and Page
Columbus, electric and water rates and water service XI 449
, Birdsey st. railroad crossing IX 576
, switching rates, and service XII 137
from River Falls, rates on seed peas, reasonableness of,
and refund XIV 97
, station facilities....^ IX 576
, telephone rates and service IV 414
, telephone utilities, adequacy of service XIV 793
Combined Locks, Kimberly and Appleton from Itasca, rates
on pulp wood, reasonableness of and refund II 250
— ^, from Wis. points on the C. & N. W. R., refund on
shipments of logs and wood XI 144
Connor's Point (Superior) to Allouez, refund on shipment
of lumber II 126
Corliss from Waukesha, reasonableness of rates on lime XI 419
Corning to Milwaukee, refund on shipment of rye IX 62
Cottage Grove and McFarland, telephone toll rates between..III 452
Cotten to Rhinelander, reasonableness of rates on lumber,
and refund XIV 754; XV 473
Cotter to Wausau, refund on shipment of logs : IX 281
Couderay to Superior, rates on lumber... V 95
County Line from Rockfield, reasonableness of rates on lime. . XIII 38
from Waukesha, reasonableness of rates on lime XI 419
Courtland, town, of, Columbia county, (Chestnut crossing)
railroad crossing, protection of XII 501
Crandon from Antigo, reasonableness of rates on lumber I . 611
to Black Creek, refund on shipment of logs VIII 544
to Eau Claire, refund on shipment of empty fruit
packages V 642
from Gagen and Atkins (Siding 234 between), refund
on shipment of logs * • IX 57
— to Menasha, refund on shipments of lumber ^...IV 485
— to Milwaukee, refund on shipment of wood XI 400
— from Neopit, refund on shipment of lumber and estab-
lishment of joint rate VIII 247'
— to Port Washington, refund on shipments of wood Ill 594
from Schofield, refund on shipments of lumber Ill 467
Cross Plains, town of (Bollenbeck crossing) (John $choepp
crossing), (Second Schulenberg crossing), railroad cross-
ings, protection of XIV 343
Cuba City from Manitowoc, refund on shipments of coal....III 517
from Montfort Jet., train service, adequacy of X 500
Cudahy from Blue Mounds, refund on shipment of live stock IX 74
from Janesville, rates on shipments of grain, reason-
ableness of, and refund XIV 79
from Milwaukee, refund on shipments of coal, coke, etc.VII 1
and Milwaukee from Wis. points, rates on live stock,
reasonableness of I 778
from Silver Springs, reduction of rates on ice XI 171
748 Localitiesllndex
Vol. and Page
Cudahy from Waukesha, refund on shipment of gravel and
crushed stone ." XIII 368
Cumberland, electric rates IV 214
Station, (crossing near), railroad grade crossing, pro- 16
tection of VIII 5
from Bibon, rates on logs, reasonableness of and re-
fund : II 700
to De Forest, refund on shipment of vegetables VIII 504
from Grandview, rates on logs, reasonableness of, and
refund XIV 287; XV 158
from Schneider's Spur, refund on shipments of logs V 645
, telephone rates Ill 576
Curtiss and Abbottsford to Menasha, rates on wood bolts,
legality of ante-dated tariff I 108
, telephone utility, extension of line XIII 630
and Dorchester, telephone toll rates for nonsubscribers. Ill 586
and Stetsonville, telephone toll rates for nonsubscribers. Ill 586
, train service an(J station facilities VI 655
Cylon, town of, telephone utility, extension of XV 241
, village of, telephone utility, extension of line XV 241
D
Dallas from Superior, refund on shipment of salt VI 499
Dane to Milwaukee, refund on shipments of grain .Ill 391
Darien, adjustment of electric rates XV 505
DarUngton, (dam across the Pecatonica river), regulation
of level and flow of water X . 38(1
, electric rates XIII 344
, electric rates and service and Tv^ater rates V 397
, station facilities, adequacy of telephone service XV 446
, telephone utilities, physical connection, and establish-
ment of uniform service, rates, rules, etc XV 92
, water rates and installation of meters ..VI 26, 408
Davis Spur to Green Bay. refund on shipments of logs Ill 385
Deans Spur to Arpin, rates on shipments of fuel wood,
reasonableness of and refund XIV 752
Deansville, train service and station faciUties VI 504
De Forest from Dorchester, joint rates on slab wood, reason-
ableness of II 95
from Cumberland, refund on shipment of vegetables VIII 504
De Pere, sale of interurban commutation tickets V 604
De Soto to Milwaukee, refund on shipments of grain IV 781
■ , station facilities, power of Commission to abate
nuisances ) XII 567
Deerfield, (2 miles west), (Henjum crossing), railroad cross-
ing, protection of XII 676
from Edgerton, joint rates on lumber V 714
from Waukesha, reasonableness of rates on lime XI 419
Localities Index 749
Vol. and Page
Deerfield and vicinity, telephone rates XII 672
Delafield, certificate of public convenience and necessity,
electric utility XV 497
, telephone rates, reasonableness of XV 397
Delavan, adjustment of electric rates XV 505
to Fond du Lac, ice boat, refund on shipment Ill 504
, station facilities VI 565
, water rates XII 148
Denmark, extension of free storage period XV 405
Devils Lake, train service, adequacy of XV 435
Dewey, station facilities and train service XII 363
Diamond Bluff, stopping of limited passenger trains Ill 350
• , train service, adequacy of XIII 525
Dill, connecting carriers, track connections IX, 509; XV, 421
, train service V, 176; XV, 449
Dodgeville, electric service, adequacy of XIII 642
, street lighting rates, reasonableness of, adequacy of
service II 392
(Division st.), railroad crossing, protection of IX, 367; XI, 151
(2% miles west of), Larson crossing, railroad crossing,
protection of IX 520
(214 miles west of), Reeson crossing, railroad crossing,
protection of IX 520
from Richland Center, empty cheese boxes, refund on
shipment and establishment of joint rates IV 450
, telephone utilities, reapportionment of toll earnings... XV 60
and Mineral Point, telephone utilities, physical
connection IX 285
, train schedules, failure of carrier to keep schedule for
connections IX 319
and Madison, train service between VIII 320
and Martintown (between), train service, adequacy of X 572
Doering to Wausau, refund on shipment of logs IX 281
Donald from Fountain Spur, refund on shipments of logs.... Ill 63
Dooney's Siding, between Dodge and Arcadia, train service. XII 116
Door county, telephone service, adequacy of XV 375
Dorchester to De Forest, joint rate on slab wood, reason-
ableness of II 95
, telephone rates Ill, 586; IX, 497
and Athens Curtiss, telephone toll rates between Ill 586
and Stetsonville, telephone toll rates Ill 586
Dousman from Waukesha, reasonableness of rates on lime. XI 419
Dover, town of, Racine county, railroad grade crossing,
protection of VIII 513
Dresser Jet. (1 mile southeast of), railroad crossing, change
of location IX 339
Drummond from Marston Spur, refund on shipments of
logs VII 12
Dudley Spur to Kenosha, refund on shipments of tanbark..IV 175
750 Localities Index
Vol. and Page
Dunfield to Kenosha, refund on shipments of tanbark IV 175
Dunham to Neillsville, refund on shipment of potatoes VI 667
Duplainville from Waukesha, reasonableness of rates on
lime XI 419
, station facilities VI, 23; XII, 111
, train service XII 690
Durand, electric rates VI 334
from Waukesha, rates on shipment of ground lime-
stone, reasonableness of and refund XIV 718
, water meters and services XI 169
Dwight, sidetrack facilities IV 117
, switch connections, spur track..... VI 501
strain service and switch connections I 191
E
Eagle (farm crossing, 3 miles west), railroad crossing,
protection of XV 272
, telephone rates, reasonableness of .....XV 397
Eagle Point, telephone utilities, changing of toll station to a
rural station XV 454
Eagle River, electric rates VI 521
, station facilities, adequacy of XV 47
, telephone rates XIV 499
— ■ — , telephone utility, extension of line XIV • 457
East Appleton (Newberry St.), (Walter Ave.), railroad
crossings, separation of grades IX 322
Eastman, telephone rates, reasonableness of XI 42
■ , telephone utility, checking station, establishment of. XIV 568
and Bridgeport (between), telephone rates XII 140
and Prairie du Chien (between), telephone rates XII 140
East Milwaukee, street railway rates, fare limits X 358
East Troy, telephone rates, reasonableness- of XV 397
Eau Claire, streiet railway, relocation of track and adequacy
of service XIV 713
, electric rates, revision of II 311
, electric rates, flaming arc lamps IX 500
, electric rates X, 692; XIII, 19, 444
(Chestnut St.), railroad crossing, protection of XIII, 74, 628
(Dewey St.), railroad crossings, separation of grades. ..XV >24
(Intersection of Drummond road with line of C. M. &
St. P. R. Co.), railroad crossing, protection of XIV 104
(Intersection of Drummond road with line of C. St.
P. M. & O. R. Co.), railroad crossing, protection of XIV 104
(Putman St.), railroad crossings, separation of grades.XV 24
to Wis. points on the C. St. P. M. & O. R. and M. St.
P. & S. S. M. R., rates on concrete blocks IX 82
and Ashland, rates on coal, reasonableness of I 767
to Ashland, refund on shipment of corn IV 331
Localities Index 751
Vol. and Page.
Eau Claire from Ashland, rates on pulp wood, reasonableness
of II 129
from Beldenville, rates on lumber, reasonableness of and
refund II 131
from Cobban, rates on logs, reasonableness of and
refund II 342
— from Crandon, refund on shipment of empty fruit
packages V 642
— from Hatch's Spur and Cobban, refund on shipments
of logs IV 319
from Signor, refund on shipment of wood VIII 38
from Spring Valley, refund on shipment of lumber Ill 66
from Stinson Spur, refund on shipments of logs V 196
Villa from Wausau, street railway fare zones and
rates of fare Ill 520
, water rates IX 134
Eau Galle, electric rates VI 334
Eden, spur track, construction of ^ IV 233
, switch connections IV 788
• , town of. Fond du Lac Co., spur track, construction
of V, 110, 727; VII, 140
, telephone rates XI 114
, train service, adequacy of I 248
Edgerton, from Wis. points, refund, on shipments of
cordwood IV 480
' to Deerfield, joint rates on lumber V 714
from Elcho, refund on shipments of lumber IV 195
from Racine Jet., rates on vehicle springs VIII 36
Edgewater to Birchwood, refund on shipment of logs IX 482
Egg Harbor, telephone utility, certificate of public conveni-
ence and necessity.. XIV 524
Eidsvold, train service, adequacy of XIV 462
Elcho, town of (134 miles north of Summit Lake) railroad
crossing, protection of XIV 796
to Edgerton, refund on shipments of lumber IV 195
Elderon, telephone service XIII 23
Eleva, telephone rates VI 211; XIV 586
Elk Mound, electric rates IX 305
, electric rates, flaming arc lamps IX 500
- — — , (First Ave.) railroad crossing, protection of XI 654
Elkhart, Chilton, New Holstein and Kiel from Manitowoc,
joint rates, establishment of I 19
to Sheboygan, joint rates on barley established between
the C. M. & St. P. R. Co. and the C. & N. W. R. Co V 668
Elkhart Lake, proposed interurban line V 466
and Green Bay (between), train service, adequacy of. XIII 80
, water rates- XI 690
Elkhorn, telephone rates VIII 497
, telephone utilities, physical connection XIII 597
752 Localities Index
Vol. and Page
Ellenboro, town of. Grant Co. telephone rates and discrim-
ination VII 608; X534
, telephone utilities, interference of high voltage trans-
mission lines XV 622
Ellis Jet. to Ladysmith, refund on shipment of wood pulp VI 586
to Park Falls, reduction of joint rates and refund on
shipment of pulp XI 699
Ellsworth from La Crosse, refund on shipment of beer IV 1 90
Elmhurst to Clintonville, refund on shipment of poles and
posts IX 185
Elroy from Sparta, refund on shipment of coal IX 396
, station facilities, adequacy of XIII 646
, telephone rates and service VIII 399
, water and electric rates XIV 485
Elton, from Lenawa and Spurs 9 and 12 on the Washburn
branch of the N. P. R., refund on shipments of logs IV 206
Embarrass to Neenah and Menasha, reasonableness of rates
on wood bolts IV 248
Emerald from Superior, refund on shipment of coal VIII 683
, town of, telephone utility, extension of line XV 241
Endeavor, electric rates XIII 448
, train service, adequacy of I 724
Engle, station facilities, adequacy of XI 175
Escanaba, Mich, to Long Lake, refund on shipments of coal. XII 709
Ettrick, telephone rates II 358; XIV 405
, telephone utilities, physical connection XII 68
Evansville, electric and water rates XI 197
, telephone rates VI 606, 639
Fairchild, west of, railroad crossing, protection of XV 755
to Caryville, railroad construction, certificate of public
convenience and necessity, granted ...VII 755
Fairwater, from Ladysmith, refund on shipments and reduc-
tion of joint rates V 655
from Weyerhauser, refund on shipments and reduction
of joint rates V 655
Fall Creek, railroad crossing, protection and restoration of I 310
Fall River, railroad grade crossing, protection of IV 778
, telephone rates and service VIII 92
, telephone rates, reasonableness of XI 499
, telephone utilities, adequacy of service XIV 793
, train service, adequacy of II 621
Farmington to Waupaca, (Wis. Veterans' Home), carrying of d
freight by electric railway XV 656
Fence to Girard Jet., rates on cordwood, reasonableness of . ... 1 1 801
Localities Index 753
Vol. and Page
Fennimore, telephone utilities, adequacy of service, interfer-
ence of high voltage transmission lines XV 622
, water rates XII 194
Fenwood to Frances Creek, refund^on shipment of wood XI 269
Fernan, reasonableness of rates for telephone switching serv-
ice and use of trunk line XV 315
Fernhaber crossing {}4 niile east of Schleisingerville), rail-
road' crossing, separation of grades XI 86
Field, station facilities, adequacy of II 253
Fifield to Kimberly, cancellation of joint trainload rates on
pulp wood VIII 105
Finley, station facilities, adequacy of XIII 617
Fitchburg (Fergin crossing), railroad crossing, protection of.XIII 403
Fond du Lac, crossing of electric road over steam road IV 127, 132
, proposed interurban line V 466
and Oshkosh, interurban railway rates and fare zones.... VI 473
(about 4 miles southeast), (Edgerton crossing) railroad
crossing, protection of XII 123
from Wis. points, minimum carload weights and refund
on shipment IX 228
from Wis. points on La Farge branch of G. M. & St. P.
R. reduction of rates on lumber VIII 131
from nearby points to Milwaukee, refund on shipment
of livestock VIII 532
from Delavan, ice boat, refund on shipment Ill 504
from Mattoon Ry. points, joint rates... V 531
and Oshkosh to Milwaukee, rates on coal, reasonable-
ness of, and refund XIV 746
from Milwaukee, reasonableness of rates on beer XIII 42
to Milwaukee, refund on shipment of cheese VI 579
to Oshkosh, refund on shipments of fruit V 675
from Wausaukee, refund on shipment of wood XI 706
, telephone directories, advertisements in IV 340
from Oakfield, telephone rates XIII 726
, sleeping car service, adequacy of XV 606
and Janesville, train service between XII 74
and Watertown, train service between XII 74
, water works, municipal acquisition of V 482; VIII 259
Fontana electric rates V 171
, electric service, adequacy of XV 383
, telephone rates, reasonableness of XV 412
Forestville, Door county, station facilities, adequacy of I 223
Ft. Atkinson, electric and water rates .XII 260, 729
— (Madison Ave. West crossing), (Sherman Ave. West
crossing), (South Fifth St.), railroad crossings, protec-
tion of : XIII 69
(South Fifth St.), railroad crossing, protection of XV 250
from Cazenovia, refund on shipments of lumber XII 219
754 Localities Index
Vol. and Page
Ft. Atkinson from Oshkosh, motor boat, refund on shipment IV 498
from Rice Lake, rates on excelsior, reasonableness of,
and refund ilV 225
— — , train service XII 74
Fosterville from Stratford, refund on shipment of hay XIII 468
Fountain Spur to Donald, refund on shipments of logs Ill 63
Foxboro, train service.... IV 121
Fox Lake, telephone rates and ser\dce VIII 92; XI 499
Fox River, telephone facilities in railroad station IV 388
Fox River Valley points, from Lake Michigan ports in Wis.,
group rates on coal VI 436
Frances Creek from Fenwood, refund on shipment of wood.XI 269
Franksville from Waukesha, reasonableness of rates, on
lime XI 419
Frederic to Birchwood, refund on shipments of logs V 643
Fredonia, town of, Ozaukee county, railroad crossing,
protection of XII 516
from Kiel, refund on shipment of cheese boxes... IX 278
from Waukesha, reasonableness of rates on lime XI 419
Freeport-Madison branch of the I. C. R. R., train service,
adequacy of II 279
Freistadt, telephone rates....... VII 428
Fremont, telephone utilities, physical connection of XIV 102
Friendship, telephone rates and service VIII 399
, telephone utihties, relocation of exchange XV 530
G
Gagen and Atkins (Siding 234 between) to Crandon, refund
on shipment of logs IX 57
Gale, town of (Richard Jahn crossing), railroad crossing,
protection of XIV 445
Galesville from La Crosse, refund on shipment of flour VI 207
, telephone utilities, physical connection XII 68
to La Crosse, telephone utility, toll rates.. XIII 25
and La Crosse (between), telephone utility, toll rates. XIV 180
Galloway to Clintonville, concentration rates on poles and
posts ; X 461
Genesee, telephone rates, reasonableness of XV 397
Geneva, points about Lake Geneva, electric rates V ' - 171
, town of (intersection with road leading from Lake
Geneva to Williams Bay), railroad crossing, protection
of XIV 481
Genoa Jet., electric rates, reasonableness of XII 337
Germantown from' Waukesha, reasonableness of rates on
lime.... XI 419
from Weyerhauser, refund on shipments and reduction
of joint rates V 655
Gillett, town of, Oconto Co., railroad crossing, installation of. IX 535
Localities Index 755
Vol. and Page
Gillett and Green Valley (point between), station facilities,
installation of X • 495
, telephone utilities, physical connection IX 189
and Green Valley (point between on county road), train
service, adequacy of XI 604
Gilman and Bellinger (siding between) to Stanley, refund on
shipment of posts IX 64
from Cobban, refund on shipments of bolts XII 134
Gilmanton, electric rates XIV 152
Girard Jet. from Fence, rates on cordwood, reasonableness
of II 801
Glasgow, Trempealeau county, telephone utility, extension
of line XII 744
Glenbeulah to Ripon, refund on shipment of logs IX 484
Glidden, telephone rates XV 180
Glover, from Butternut, rates on shipments of cheese boxes,
reasonableness of and refund XIV 761
Goodman to Pembine, refund on shipment of logs IX 41
to Tomahawk, refund on shipment of lumber VII 581
Goodnow to Merrill, refund on shipments of logs Ill 54
Goodrich to Athens, operation of branch railroad I 739; IV 455
Grafton from Waukesha, reasonableness of rates on lime XI 419
, telephone rates VII 428
Grand Rapids, electric utility municipal acquisition XV 258
(Fourth Ave. North crossing), railroad crossing,
protection of XIII 395
(Third Ave. North crossing), railroad crossing,
protection of XIII 395
from Wis. points, reduction of rates and refund on
shipments of pulp wood IX 111
from Wis. points on the M. St. P. & S. S. M. R.,
reduction of rates on wood XI 393
from Gravel Pits, reasonableness of rates, on sand
and gravel XV 482
from Lake Michigan ports in Wis. group rates on coal. VI 436
to Port Edwards, reasonableness of rates on "hog '
fuel," and refund .'...... XV 527
from Rhinelander, restoration of joint commodity
rate VIII 58
from Star Lake, rates on logs, reasonableness of and
refund II 773
— from Vesper, refund on shipment of brick IX 163
Grandview to Cumberland, rates on logs, reasonableness of,
and refund XIV 287; XV 158
to Washburn, refund on shipment of wood bolts Ill 600
Granite from Milwaukee, refund on shipment of bags IX 182
Grant county, telephone utilities, physical connection, and
establishment of uniform service, rates, rules, etc XV 92
, telephone rates XIV 407
756 Localities Index
Vol. and Page
Granton from Chili, refund on shipments of bolts Ill 518
Grantst)urg, extension of telephone service without author-
ity from Commission XIII 437
, sAvitch connections IV 395
, train service and station facilities VII 764
, train service VIII 685
Granville, railroad crossings, protection of I 712
, town of (Cedarburg Plank Road), railroad crossing,
protection of XI 612
from Rockfield, reasonableness of rates on lime ,...XIII 38
from Waukesha, reasonableness of rates on hme XI 419
Gravel Pit to Horicon, refund on shipment of fuel wood VI 199
to Grand Rapids, Waupaca and Scandinavia, reason-
ableness of rates on sand and gravel XV 482
Green Bay, street railway, extension of line VII 715
, street railway, track curves and elimination of noise VIII 688
and Manitowoc (between), express rates on laundry XIV 817
, gas rates V 101
, gas and electric rates XII 324
, (Main street), (Mason street), (Monroe avenue),
(Walnut street), railroad crossing, protection of XII 383
from Wis. points, refund on shipments of logs Ill 388
to Appleton, group rates on coal VI 436
to Appleton, refund on shipment of coke IV 171
from Cedarville, refund on shipments of logs Ill 386
from Davis Spur, refund on shipments of logs Ill 385
to Hobson, refund on shipment of groceries Ill 422
to Fox River Valley points, group rates on coal...., VI 436
from La Crosse, rates on dried brewers' grains V 705
from Lake Michigan ports in Wis., group rates on coal... VI 436
from Long Lake, refund on shipment of piling X 639
to Long Lake, refund on shipments of coal XII 709
from Manawa, rates on cucumbers and onions, reason-
ableness of and refund II - 340
from Mattoon Ry. points, joint rates.. : V 531
from Racine and Racine Jet., refund on shipment of
springs and axles IX 180
to Wis. River Valley points, group rates on coal VI 436
to Wausau, group rates on coal VI 436
, switching charges, absorption of XIV 172
, ordinance requiring removal of telephone poles Ill 147
, train service, adequacy of XV 758
and Elkhart Lake (between), train service, adequacy of.XIII 80
-. water rates and service XI 236; XII 734; XV 84
Greenfield, town of, Milwaukee Co., (Janesville Plank Road)
(Forest Home avenue), railroad crossing, protection of... XI 362
, town of, Milwaukee Co. (Kilbourn road) (Twenty-
second ave.), railroad crossing, protection of XI 362
Localities Index 757
Vol. and Page
Greenfield, town of, Milwaukee Co., (South Town Line
road), railroad crossing, separation of grades IX 270
, town of, Milwaukee Go. (Twenty-fourth avenue)
(Twenty-sixth avenue), railroad crossing XI 362
Green Grove, telephone utility, extension of line XIII 630
Green Lake from Ladysmith, refund on shipments of lumber
and reduction of joint rates V 647
Green Valley and Gillette, (point between) station facilities,
installation of X 495
— ■ — and Gillette, (point between on county road), train
service, adequacy of XI 604
Greenville, station facilities, adequacy of XV 386
Greenwood, electric rates, minimum charges VI * 60
— , telephone utilities, adequacy of service XV 323
from Marshfield, train service, adequacy of I 720
Gresham, telephone utilities, increase in rates XV 552
Grimms to Wausau, refund on shipment of lime IX 160
H
Hackley from Oakfield, refund on shipments of lime VII 149
Hamilton (300 ft. north of), railroad crossing, protection of. XI 95
Hamilton and Honey Creek to Menomonee Falls, reasonable-
ness of rates on sugar beets, and refund XV 650
Hanley to Bagley Jet., reduction of rates and refund on ship-
ment of piling XI 108
Hannibal to Boyd, refund on shipments of logs Ill 40
Hartford, town of, telephone utility, certificate of public
convenience and necessity XIV 766
Hartland (Cottonwood ave.), railroad crossing, protection of XI 432
from Waukesha, reasonableness of rates on lime XI 419
Hatch's Spur to Eau Claire, refund on shipments of logs IV 319
Hatley to South Milwaukee, refund on shipments of cord-
wood • VI 222
Hawkins to Milwaukee, refund on shipment of wood VIII 62
, switching rates on lumber, reasonableness of, and
refund XIV 136
Hayton, Kiel, New Holstein and Chilton from Manitowoc,
joint rates on barley, reasonableness of I 69
Hayward from Ashland, refund on shipment of lumber VII 14
from Hines, rates on train load shipments of logs,
reasonableness of and refund II 390
Hazelhurst to Appleton and Kaukauna, refund on shipments
of lumber VI 209
to Merrill, refund on shipments of logs Ill 54
Hazel Green, train service, adequacy of II 61
HeafFord Jet. to La Crosse, reasonableness of rates on Christ-
mas trees and refund XII 95
758 Localities Index
Vol. and Page
Heafford Jet. from Mansori and Bradley, rates on shipment
of bolts, reasonableness of and refund \..XIV 805
to Wausau, refund on shipments of logs IV 362
Heineman branch (point on) of C. & N. W. R. to Sheboygan,
refund on shipment of tanbark XI 141
Heineman to Wausau, refund on shipment of logs IX 281
Helenville from Waukesha, reasonableness of rates on lime... XI 419
Herman, town of, telephone utility, extension of line XIV 402
Ilewetts from Highland Jet. rates on stone tailings, reason-
ableness of, and refund XIV 217
Highland to Wis. Points, on the C. & N.. W. R. and return,
refund on shipment of beer and empty beer carriers XII 236
r- to Wis. points on the C. & N. W. R., establishment of
joint rates on beer IX 76
and Mineral Point, (between) train service, adequacy
of '...XI 643
Jet. to Hewetts, rates on stone tailings, reasonableness
of, and refund XIV 217
Hilbert Jet. to Sheboygan, joint rates on barley established
between the C. M. & St. P. R. Co. and the G. & N. W.
R. Co ' V 668
Hillsboro from Madison, rates on shipments of wire fencing,
barb wire, staples and nails, reasonableness of, and refund XII 756
, water rates and service VIII 85
Hillsdale to Osceola, refund on shipments of grain ...V 291
, station facilities .'. V 198
Hines to Hayward, rates on trainload shipments of logs,
reasonableness of and refund II 390
Hinkle (between Kimball and Hurley), train service, ade-
quacy of XV 502
Hintz, telephone utilities, physical connection IX 189
Hixon to Cedar Falls, operation of railroad line, continua-
tion of XII 223
Hixton to Milwaukee, refund on shipment of oats *. V 430
Hoard, telephone utility, extension of line XIII 630
Hobson from Green Bay, refund on shipment of groceries. ...HI 422
Holcombe, town of, telephone utility, extension of line XIV 814
Holder and Stratford (between), rates on logs, reasonable-
ness of, adequacy of train service and station facilities... I 831
Honey Greek {l}4 miles north of), (Cooper's crossing),
railroad crossing, protection of XI 436
and Hamilton to Menomonee Falls, reasonableness of
rates on sugar beets, and refund XV 650
Horicon from Gravel Pit, refund on shipment of fuel wood. .VI 199
from Milwaukee, reasonableness of rates on sand, and
refund XV 164
■ from , refund on shipments of slag XIII 640
from Neopit, petition for joint rates, and refund on
shipments VIII 247
Localities Index 759
Vol. and Page
Horicon from Waiisau, refund on shipment of lumber VI 434
, dredging of river XIII 603
, station facilities, adequacy of XIV 144
Hortonville, telephone rates and service IV 370
Ilotchkiss Spur from Lange Spur (2.1 miles between)
(between Draper and Kaiser), rates on ties and rails,
reasonableness of, and refund XIV 186
Howard, town of (1 mile west of Albertville), railroad
crossing, protection of XIV 433
Hub City, telephone utilities, physical connection XIV 655
Hubertus, telephone utilities, adequacy of service XV 152
Hudson, electric rates and service V 139
from Wis. points, and destined to Manitowoc and
Milwaukee, refund on shipments of grain IV 488
, rules and regulations governing meters Ill 138
Humbird (King St. crossing), railroad crossing, protection of X 434
Hurley to Mayville, refund on shipments of iron ore XII 716
from Milwaukee, refund on shipments of beer IV 766
, water rates and service XIV 291
Hustler, telephone rates and service VIII 399'
, telephone utilities, physical connection XII 213
Hyde, telephone utilities, physical connection ...XV 390
Independence to Milwaukee, refund on shipments of oats
and rye V 430
Ingram to Ladysmith, refund on shipment of slabs IX 39
Iowa county, telephone utilities, physical connection and
establishment of uniform service, rates, rules, etc XV 92
Iron Ridge (Dodge Co.), railroad grade crossing, separation
of grades VI 128,672
Iron River or Bibon from Lake Nebagamon (between) and
other points from Winnebijou and Campbell's Mill,
train service, adequacy of XV 599
Ironton to and from Wis. points, joint rates VI 693
Itasca to Combined Locks, Kimberly and Appleton, rates on
pulp wood, reasonableness of and refund II 250
from Clear Lake, double minimum on mixed carloads
of grains and seeds • V 711
Station (Superior) from East End yard, refund on
shipment of crushed stone..... VI 219
Station (Superior) from East End yard, refund on
shipment of crushed stone and establishment of switch-
ing charge in place of distance tariff rate V 449
discriminatory leasing of grain elevator I 655
Ixonia and Watertown, towns of, Jefferson county (town
road between), interurban railway service XII 404
760 Localities Index
J
Vol. and Page
Jackson from Waukesha, reasonableness of rates on lime XI - 419
Jacksonport, telephone utility, certificate of public con-
venience and necessity XIV 524
Janesville, street railyray, abandonment of track IV 757
, interurban railways, routing of cars IX 502
(South Janesville), interurban railway rates VI 695
^ , electric service .XII 57.0
(Rock river in), navigable waters, obstructions in
stream XIV 190
, reasonableness of switching charges on gravel and
sand X 436
from Wis. points on the G. M. & St. P. R., refund on
shipment of grain X 377
to Wis. points on G. M. & St. P. R., refund on ship-
ments of sand and gravel XIII 380
to Gudahy, rates on shipment of grain, reasonableness
of, and refund XIV 79
— ^ — from La Grosse, rates on dried brewers' grains V 705
from Mattoon Ry. points, joint rates V 531
— — , Menomonee Falls and Ghippewa Falls from Wis.
points-, rates on sugar beets and beet pulp, reasonableness
of I 258
ta Milwaukee, reasonableness of rates on rye, and
refund XV 524
from Nekoosa, reasonableness of rates on rye, and
refund ' XV 524
from Racine Jet., rates on vehicle springs VIII 36
from Rice Lake, refund on shipment of excelsior Ill 595
, Sparta, Madison & Watertown, from Wis. points on
the G. B. & W. R., joint rates on tobacco, reasonableness
of....: ; II 807
from Trempealeau, refund on shipment of buckwheat. XIV 771
— — , switching service I 590, 733; II 553
— — , absorption of switching charges XIII 783
, telephone rates, reasonableness of XV 378
, telephone utilities, physical connection XIV 529
and Fond du Lac, train service between XII 74
and Mineral Point (between), train service XI 569
, extension of water main XV 370
, water rates and service VII 628; XV 117
, water utility, municipal acquisition XIII 29; XV 674
Jarvis to Bagley Jet., reduction of rates and refund on ship-
ment of piling XI 108
Jefferson, electric and water rates V 555
from Merrimac, refund on shipments of lumber waste.VIII 553
, train service XII 74
Localities Index 761
Vol. and Page
JclTerson Jet. from Waukesha, reasonableness of rates on
lime XI 419
Jet. train service XII 74
Joel, station facilities, adequacy of XV 465
Jonesdale, train service, adequacy of .....X 512
Juda, station facilities, adequacy of telephone service XV 433
Junction city, reasonableness of rates on logs, and refund... XV 53
K
Kaiser to Stoughton, refund on shipment of lumber XI 267
Kansasville (crossing near), railroad grade crossing, protec-
tion of ...VIII 513
Kaukauna, proposed interurban line V 466
, electric utility, municipal acquisition XII 189
, electric service and facilities V 695
, electric and gas utility, municipal acquisition VIII 409
, railroad crossing, separation of grades.. IX 322
from Wis. points on the C. & N. W. R., refund on
shipment of logs and wood XI 144
from Hazclhurst, refund on shipments'of lumber VI 209
from Lake Michigan ports in Wis., group rates on coal.. .VI 436
and Manitowoc (between), train service, adequacy of....X 590
Keesus from Rockfield, reasonableness of rates on hme XIII 38
from Waukesha, reasonableness of rates on lime XI 419
Kendall to Milwaukee, refund on shipment of oats XIII 182
Kennan to Phillips, reduction of rates and refund on ship-
ments of wood XIII 687
Kenosha, interurban railway, adequacy of service XII 508
, (Prairie ave.) railroad crossing,- protection of XI 56'0
, electric rates VIII 119
, from Dunfield and Dudley Spur, refund on shipments
of tanbark IV 175
from Mattoon Ry. points, joint rates V - 5'U
from Milwaukee, refund on shipment of structural iron. .VI 540
, Racine and Milwaukee, from Rhinelander and Odanah,
reasonableness of rates on lumber, and refund XV 575
from Rockfield, reasonableness of rates on lime XIII 38
from Scotts, refund on shipment of tanbark XI 537
from Waukesha, reasonableness of rates on lime XI 419
, re-opening of switch track as a team track V 295
, station facilities, interurban railways XII 257
, water rates XV 426
Kewaunee from Birchwood, refund on shipment of lumber. IV 109
from Mellen, refund on shipments of lumber IV 772
Kiel, from Wis. points, refund on shipments of logs Ill 597
, Elkhart, Chilton and New Holstein from Manitowoc,
joint rates, establishment of I 19
to Fredonia, refund on shipment of cheese boxes IX 278
762 Localities Index
Vol. and Page
Kiel, New Holstein, Chilton and Hay ton from Manitowoc,
joint rates on barley, reasonableness of I ' 69
— — to Sheboygan, joint rates on barley established between
the C. M. & St. P. R. Go. and the G. & N. W. R. G0....V 668
Kilbourn and Portage (between), station facilities, adequacy
of I . 254
, train service XII 560
Kimberly from Wis. points on the G. & N. W. R. refund oh
shipment of logs and wood XI 144
from Wis. points (Northern Wis.), refund on ship-
' ments of pulp wood VI 175
Appleton and Combined Locks, from Itasca, rates on
pulp wood, reasonableness of and refund II 250
from Butternut, Fifield, and Park Falls, tancellation of
joint trainload rates on pulp wood VIII 105
Kingston, spur track XIII 615
, telephone utilities, toll rates and division of tolls XV 288
Knapp, (2.6 miles southeast of), (Kasper crossing) railroad
crossing, protection of XI 592
, (2.4 miles southeast of) (McGuUoch crossing), rail-
road crossing, protection of XI 595
to New Richmond, rates on grain, reasonableness of and
refund II 610
Knowles to Milwaukee, refund on shipments of flux stone IV 114
Knowlton, reasonableness of rateson logs, and refund XV 53.
Krakow, station facilities, adequacy of II 275
Kurth, train service, adequacy of IX 513
i
L
La Grosse, interpretation of accounting terms in contract VIII 18
, street railway, abandonment of track Ill 292
, street railway, adequacy of service XV 174
, 25th and La Grosse streets, street railway service XIV 518
, electric service, adequacy of ...-. II 670
, electric rates, increase in II 3
— — , electric rates, payment of rates in advance IV 142
, electric, gas, and heating rates VIII 138
— -^j railroad crossing, separation of grades VIII 422
— (Mill street crossing), railroad crossing, protection of XIII 145
to Wis. points, less than carload rates on petroleum
products VI 326
to Wis. points (southern and eastern), rates on .dried
brewers' grains .- V 705
to Berlin, rates on dried brewers' grains V 705
to Ellsworth and River Falls, refund on shipment of
beer : IV 190
to Galesville, refund on shipment of flour VI 207
to Green Bay, rates on dried brewers' grains V 705
Localities Index ' 763
Vol. and Page
I.a Crosse from HealTord Jet. reasonableness of rates on
Christmas trees and refund on shipment XII 95
to Janesville, rates on dried brewers' grains V 705
to Markesan, rates on dried brewers' grains V 705
from Menomonie, refund on shipment of brick IV 775
and Milwaukee, reasonableness of rates on bottles, and
refund XV 82
to Minnesota Jet. rates on dried brewers' grains V 705
from New London, rates on slab wood, reasonableness
of, and refund '. XIV 138
— , to Rice Lake, refund on shipment of beer VI 18
— , So. La Crosse to No. La Crosse, switching rates on
scrap iron and refund on shipment XII 186
— to Thiensville, rates on dried brewers' grains V 705
— to Troy Center, rates on dried brewers' grains V 705
— from Vesper, reasonableness of rates on silos, and re-
fund XV 442
— to Watertown, rates on dried brewers' grains V 705
— to Winneconne, rates on dried brewers' grains V 705
-, telephone rates II 546; XV 831
— , telephone poles removal of VII 435
— , telephone and electric poles, removal of VI 195
— , telephone utilities, physical connection XI 748; XII 68; XV 36
— and Galesville (between), telephone utility, toll rates...
XIII 25; XIV 180
— , water service VII 27
Ladysmith, (Lake ave.) (Miner ave.) (Second st. f^ast)
(Second st. west), railroad crossing, protection of XI 325, 554
, refund on shipment of lumber XI 276
to Wis. points (southern Wis.) refund on shipments of
lumber and reduction of joint rates V 647, 655
to Ashland, refand on shipment of paper VIII 78
^ — — to Beloit, refund on shipments of lumber and reduction
of joint rates V 647, 655
from Ellis Jet., refund on shipment of wood pulp VI 586
to Fairwater, refund on shipments and reduction of
joint rates - V 655
to Green Lake, refund on shipments of lumber and re-
duction of joint rates V 647
from Ingram, refund on shipment of slabs IX 39
to Markesan, refund on shipments and reduction of
joint rates V 655^
from McCann's Spur, rates on logs, reasonableness of
and refund II 589
to Menasha, refund on shipment of pulp wood VIII 16
from Menasha, refund oH shipment of paper II 300
from Merrill, refund on shipment of pulp wood Ill 620
to North Prairie, refund on shipments and reduction
of joint rates V 655
764 . Localities Index
Vol. and Page
Ladysmith to Princeton, refund on shipments of lurnber and
reduction of joint rates V 647
from Rhinelander, refund on shipments of wood pulp.. IV 360
from Stiles, refund on shipment of wood pulp VI 586
to Tomah, refund on shipments and reduction of joint
rates..^ V 655
to Wonewoc, refund on shipments of lumber and reduc-
tion of joint rates .V 647
La Farge to Mt. Horeb, refund on shipment of lumber VI 528
to Watertown, refund on shipment of lumber VIII 131
LaFayette, town of, Chippewa Co., telephone rates XI 415
county, telephone utilities, physical connection, and
establishment of uniform service rates, rules, etc XV 92
La Grange, telephone rates, reasonableness of XV 397
Lake from Milwaukee, refund on shipments of coal, feed and
refuse X 370
from Waukesha, reasonableness of rates on lime XI 419
Lake Beulah (3 miles south of), (Heinebaugh crossing),
railroad crossing, protection of XI 436
Lake Geneva, electric rates XII 337; XIV 381
, and immediate vicinity, electric rates, meter rental... VI 203
, points about Lake Geneva, electric rates V 171
, municipal acquisition of water works VI 403
Lake Michigan ports in Wis. to Wis. points in the Fox
River Valley and the Wis. River Valley districts, group
rates on coal VI 436
Lake Mills from Waukesha, reasonableness of rates on lime.... XI 419
, telephone rates VI 187
, water mains, extension of XII 577; XIV 210
water and electric utilities, financial management XI 160
Lake Nebagamon to Iron River or Bibon (between), and
other points from Winnebijou and Campbell's Mill,
train service, adequacy of ; XV 599
, telephone service, adequacy of XV 50
Lake Park in Milwaukee, street railway service, adequacy of .IV 439
Lampson, station facilities, adequacy of IV 783; XV 489
Lancaster, electric rates, minimum charges VI 53
from Richland Center, refund on shipment of cheese
boxes ; IX 517
, telephone utilities, interference of high voltage trans-
mission lines XV 622
— — and Madison, train service between... VIII 320
Lange Spur to Hotchkiss Spur (2.1 miles between),
(between Draper and Kaiser), rates on ties and rails,
reasonableness of, and refund XIV 186
Lannon, demurrage charges on shipments of stone XIV 449
(two culverts immediately west of the "Wye" at
Lannon), railroad crossing, protection of , XV 203
Laona to Wis. points, refund on shipments of lumber VII 774; VIII 697
Localities Index 765
Vol. and Page
Laona, train service, adequacy of XV 758
Laona Jet. (east of), train service IX 45
La Prairie, town of (South Janesville crossing) (Woodman's
crossing), railroad crossing, protection of XIII 440
Larsen, telephone rates and service XIII 363
Lauderdale Lake, telephone utiUties, physical connection XIII 597
Lavalle to and from Wis. points, joint rates VI 693
Lay ton Park from Waukesha, refund on shipment of gravel
and crushed stone , XIII 368
Lebanon, town of. Dodge Co., railroad crossing VI 424
Lehigh, station facilities, adequacy of XV 585
Lenawa and Spurs 9 and 12 on the Washburn branch of the
N. P. R. to Elton, refund on shipments of logs IV 206
Lewiston, station facilities, adequacy of. I 254
, station facilities and train service, adequacy of I 102
Lime Kilns, station facilities, adequacy of II 344
Lincoln, town of, Monroe Co., railroad crossing, restoration
of X 531
Lisbon, town of, Waukesha Co., railroad crossing V 592
, town of, telephone utility, extension of line XIV 131; XV 57
Little Rapids to Stevens Point, refund on shipment of
wood pulp VIII 64
Livingston, telephone rates XII 128
from Montfort Jet., train service, adequacy of X 500
Lodi, electric rates and meters VII 745
, telephone rates and service XI 713; XIV 157
Loganville, telephone rates and service XIV 157
Lohrville, station facilities VIII 699
Lomira, telephone service, adequacy of.. XV 582
London (1 ^ miles west) (Himley crossing) (Main street)
(2 miles west) (Schroeder crossing), railroad crossings
protection of XII 676
London from Waukesha, reasonableness of rates on lime XI 419
Lone Rock from Menomonie, refund on shipment of brick XII 217
, telephone rates Ill 412
Long Lake, Washburn county, level and flow of water XV 708
from Escanaba, Mich., refund on shipments of coal XII 709
to Green Bay, refund on shipment of piling X 639
from Green Bay, refund on shipments of coal XII 709
Loyal, train service, adequacy of I 720
LubUn to Chippewa Falls, rates on logs, reasonableness of,
and refund II 607
Lucas, town of (Kaspar crossing), railroad crossing, protec-
tion of XI 592; XII 703
Lusk, station facilities, adequacy of IX 342
Luxemburg, railroad grade crossing, protection of IV 244
Lyons, railroad crossings, protection of X 499
766 Localities Index
M
Vol. and Page
Madison, articles constituting personal baggage VIII 311
, authority to issue bonds f, II 47
, street railway service.. .VI 162; tX 1; XI 67, 762; XII
49, 167; XIV 598
, street railway rates and service XII 49
, ordinance for removal of poles and wires of electric
utility ....XI 293
, gas and electric service XIII 518
, gas and electric rates VII 152; XIII 259
, gas and electric rates and service IV 501
, town of, (crossing at Sauk road near Highlands plat)
railroad crossing, separation of grades ...XII 395
, town of (Summit crossing) (Tierman crossing) (Tillot-
son crossing), railroad crossings, protection of XIII 608; XV 108
, refund on shipments of scrap iron V 426
, refund on shipment of steel rails VIII 309
from Wis. points, refund on shipments of butter and
eggs Ill 337
to Belleville, MonticeUo and Monroe, car service, re-
frigerator cars IX 240
from Colfax, refund on shipments of stone and estab-
ment of joint rates V 287
from Colfax, refund on shipments of stone V 635
to Hillsboro, rates on shipments of wire fencing, barb
wire, staples and nails, reasonableness of, and refund XII 756
from Mattoon Ry. points, joint rates V 531
from Milwaukee, refund on shipment of paper V 293
from Racine Jet. rates on vehicle springs VIII 36
from Rhinelander, refund on shipment of wood IV 478
, Sparta, Janesville and Watertown from Wis. points on
the G. B. & W. R., joint rates on tobacco, reasonableness
of II 807
, spur track XIII 409
, switching charge on scrap iron ...IV 432
, classification in telephone service Ill 440
and McFarland, telephone toll rates between Ill 452
, train service, adequacy of ^ I 615
Freeport branch of the I. C. R. R., train service, ade-
quacy of II 279
and Lancaster, train service between VIII 320
and Portage, train service between XII 560
and Prairie du Chien (between), Sunday train service,
adequacy of XV 652
and Verona, Mt. Horeb, Dodgeville, train service be-
tween VIII 320
, water mains, extension of , X 447
Localities Index 767
Vol. and Page
Madison, water rates Ill 299
, water rates and service V 731
Madras to Stevens Point, reasonableness of rates on logs, arid
refund XV 53
Magnolia, station facilities XII 564
Maiden Rock, station facilities Ill 356
— — , train service IV 311
Malone to Milwaukee, through Fond du Lac, refund on
shipment of live stock VIII 532
Manawa to Green Bay, rates on cucumbers and onions,
reasonableness of and refund II 340
Manitowoc and Two Rivers, interurban railway rates VI 395
, electric rates and service V 360
, electric utility, municipal acquisition XIII 452
, electric and water rates XIV 697; XV 212
and Green Bay (between), express rates on laundry... XIV 817
, gas rates Ill 163; XIII 325
from Wis. points, with stoppage in transit at Hudson,
refund on shipments of grain IV 488
, refund from charge for switching cars of coal XII 184
to Appleton, group rates on coal VI 436
to Chilton, Hay ton, Kiel, New Holstein, joint rates on
barley, reasonableness of I 69
to Chilton, New Holstein, Kiel and Elkhart, joint rates,
establishment of I 19
to Cuba City, refund on shipments of coal Ill 517
to Fox River Valley points, group rates on coal VI 436
from Mattoon Ry. points, joint rates V 531
to Milwaukee, refund on shipments of hay V 480
to Trevor, refund on shipment of coal .- Ill 339
to Wausau, group rates on coal VI 436
to Wis. River Valley points, group rates on coal VI 436
and Kaukauna, (between) train service, adequacy of X 590
, water rates and service X 387
, water works, municipal acquisition VII 71; VIII 266
, water rates, ownership of meters and service XIV 690
Manson and Bradley to HeaiTord Jet., rates on shipment of
bolts, reasonableness of and refund XIV 805
Manson and Bradley to Merrill, rates on shipment of bolts,
reasonableness of and refund XIV 805
Maple and Wiehe (between), switch connections, estab-
ment of II 37
Marathon City, railroad grade crossing, protection of VIII 28
Marathon county, telephone rates XV 822
Marblehead, spur track.... VII 140
Marengo Jet., train service, adequacy of I 316
Marinette, electric rates Ill 778
, protection of railroad grade crossing V 455
, (Marinette crossing), railroad crossing, protection of.... XV 200
768 Localities Index
Vol. and Page
Marinette from Oconto, refund on shipment of lumber ...IX 37
from Pulaski, refund on shipment of oats V 432
to Stanley, rates on carload of box shooks, reasonable-
ness of, and refund .XIV 84
, telephone rates IV 1
-, water rates VIII 334
Marion, telephone rates .....XIV 552
to Ashland, refund on shipment of potatoes VI 667
Markesan from La Crosse, rates on dried brewers' grains .V 705
from Ladysmith, refund on shipments and reduction of
joint rate V * 655
telephone toll rates and- division of tolls XV 288
Marshall crossing near New Lisbon, railroad grade crossing,
protection of VIII 511
Marshfield (Adler road), railroad crossing, protection of XII 59
, town of (Auburndale crossing), railroad crossings,
protection of XV 207
(Becker Road), (East Fourth street), railroad cros-
sing, protection of XII 59
, town of (Main St. near Hewitt station), railroad cros-
sing, protection of XV 207
, town of (crossing 1% miles east of Marshfield),
railroad crossing, protection of ; XV 207
(North Central ave.), railroad crossing, protection of....XII 59
(Vine St.), railroad crossing, protection of XIV 110
from Wis. points, refund on shipment of logs VI 571
to Sheboygan, rates on excelsior X 641
, Wausau, and intermediate stations, to Bolton, Bear
Trap, and intermediate stations, reasonableness of rates
on hay, and refunds on shipments XII 433
, telephone rates, extra charge for long distance
connections VI 589
to Greenwood, train service, adequacy of I 720
Marston Spur to Drummond, refund on shipments of logs.. VII 12
Martintown and Dodgeville (between), train service,
adequacy of X ' 572
Mattoon to Wis. points, joint and local rates, discrimination
in car service, and railroad as carrier V 531
, telephone utility, extension of line XIV 329
Mansion, telephone rates and service VIII 399
, telephone utilities, physical connection XII 213
Mayville, dredging of river XIII 603
, electric rates and rules and regulations VII 59
, Rock River, level and flow of water XV 698
, rates on shipments of brick, reasonableness of, and
refund... XIV 92
, refund on shipments of brick, switching rates XII 248
from Hurley, refund on shipments of iron ore XII 716
Localities Index 769
Vol. and Page
Mayville to West A.llis, rates on shipment of fuel oil, reason-
ableness of, and refund XIV 577
from Milwaukee, refund on shipment of scrap iron VI 205, 548
Mazomanie, .telephone service IV 111
, telephone rates and service XIV 157
, telephone utihties, physical connection XV 390
and Black Earth, telephone service Ill 514
McCann's Spur to Ladysmith, rates on logs, reasonableness
of, and refund II 589
McCord, Brantwood and Tripoli to Rhinelander, reason-
ableness of rates on wood, and refund XV 171
McFarland, telephone rates II 518; III, 452
and Cottage Grove, telephone toll rates' between Ill 452
and Madison, telephone toll rates between Ill 452
Mclnnis to Milwaukee, refund on shipment of tanbark XI 537
McNaughton, station facilities, adequacy of XV 326
Medford, electric rates II 421
— — from various points, rates on berry boxes, reason-
ableness of I 44
, station facilities VIII 301
Meehan, station facilities, adequacy of X 626
Mellen to Kewaunee, refund on shipments of lumber IV 772
to Milwaukee, refund on shipment of lumber XII 239
— — , certificate of public convenience and necessity for
water utility '. VII 579
, water service.....! V 202
water rates, reasonableness of X 651
Menasha, electric rates XIII 424
, proposed interurban line V 466
to Wis. points, reduction of rates on pulp wood IX 111
from Wis. points on the M. St. P. & S. S. M. R.,
reduction of rates on wood XI 393
from Wis. points on the M. St. P. & S. S. M. R.,
refund on shipments of logs and bolts XI 746
Neenah from Wis. points on W. C. R., rates on pulp
wood, reasonableness of I 234
from Abbottsford and Curtiss, rates on wood bolts,
legality of ante-dated tariff I 108
from Crandon, refund on shipments of lumber IV 485
from Embarrass, reasonableness of rates on wood bolts. IV 248
from Ladysmith, refund on shipment of pulp wood VIII 16
to Ladysmith, refund on shipment of paper II 300
and Oshkosh, from points in Wis. on the M. St. P. &
S. S. M. R., reasonableness of rates on bolts, and refund .XV 178
Mendota (34 mile north of), railroad crossing, alteration of... IX 218
Menomonee, town of (two crossings lying partially in the
town of Menomonee), railroad crossings, protection of... XIV 549
Menomonee Falls (crossing 1 mile west of Menomonee
Falls), railroad crossing, protection of XV 203
25
770 Localities Index
Vol. and Page
Menomonee Falls (crossing 1.1 miles west of Menomonee
Falls), railroad crossing, protection of XV 203
, from Honey Creek and Hamilton, reasonableness of
rates on sugar beets, and refund XV 650
, Janesville and Chippewa Falls from Wis. points,
rates on sugar beets and beet pulp, reasonableness of I 258
from Waukesh.a, reasonableness of rates on lime XI 419
Menomonie, electric rates, flaming arc lamps IX 500
to La Crosse, refund on shipment of brick IV 775
to Lone Rock, refund on shipment of brick XII 217
from Waupun, refund on shipment of twine XIII 393
, station facilities, adequacy of XIV 123
(North Menomonie), train service and station
facilities, adequacy of X 478
Menomonie Jet., station facilities, adequacy of XIV 123
Mentor, town of, Clark Co. (King st. crossing), railroad
crossing, protection of X .434
Mequon from Rockfield, reasonableness of rates on lime XIII 38
— — , town of, Ozaukee Co., telephone rates VII 428
Merrill, street railway, extension of line V 418
• , electric rates, increase in II 148
, electric utility, standards of service VIII 270
, express delivery service XIII 594
from Goodnow, refund on shipments of logs Ill 54
frdm Hazelhurst, refund on shipments of logs Ill 54
to Ladysmith, refund on shipment of pulp wood.' Ill 620
from Manson and Bradley, rates on bolts, reasonable-
ness of, and refund XIV 805
from Lake Michigan ports in Wis., group rates on
coal VI 436
— — from Smith's Spur, refund on shipment of logs XI 725
from Star Laike, refund on shipment of logs V 596
from Velasco, refund on shipments of logs IV 770
from Velasco Jet., refund on shipment of logs XI 274
^ from Waukesha, reasonableness of rates on slaked
lime, and refund XV 162
-, telephone rates, reasonableness of XII 490
Merrillan, village of (Pearl st. and Main st.), railroad
crossing, protection of XIV 315
, station facilities, adequacy of XV 635
Merrimac to Jefferson, refund on shipments of lumber waste. .VIII 553
, station facihties and railroad crossing IX 50
Merton to Chestnut st., Milwaukee, ice rates IV 71
Middleton, spur track, switch connection, protection of XV 306
, telephone service XIII 399
and Verona (between), telephone utilities, physical
connection XV 286
Mifllin, town of, Iowa county, electric utility, certificate of
public convenience and necessity X 603
Localities Index 771
Vol. and Page
Mifflin, telephone utilities, physical connection XV 185
Mignon from Waukesha, reasonableness of rates on lime XI 419
Mikana, telephone utilities, refusal to extend service .XV 499
Milan, station facilities, adequacy of X 399
Millston (about 800 ft. northwest), (immediately southeast),
railroad crossings, protection of XII 400
Milltown, station facilities and train service, adequacy of.... XI 627
Milton, electric rates, minimum charge XIV 206
, telephone rates VI 542
Milton Jet., electric rates, minimum charge XIV 325
-^ , (1 mile north of), Nelson highway, railroad crossing,
protection of IX 379
— ■ — , telephone rates VI 542
Milwaukee to Wis. points, articles constituting personal bag-
gage VIII 115
• to Wis. points, application of the Milwaukee & Fox
River Valley R. Co. for certificate of public convenience
and necessity V 466
and Oconomowoc, interurban railway between, appli-
tion for a certificate of public convenience and necessity.... I II 288
r-, proposed interurban line V 466
, report of accidents, application of Ch. 362, Laws of '
1905 to street railways I 178
— , (Wells street between Second and Fifth streets) joint
use of tracks, public necessity and convenience of XIII 268, 299
— , street railway rates XI; XV 724
— and Calhoun (between), interurban rates, reasonable-
ness of XIII 475
— and Brown Deer, interurban rates and car service be-
tween VIII 734
— and Watertown, withdrawal of commutation rate be-
tween Ill 330
— and Waukesha (between), interurban rates X 306
— and Wauwatosa (between), street railway service,
adequacy of I 689
— and , rates (between), street railway fare limits,
extension of single fare limits X 337
— and West Allis (between), suburban rates, reasonable-
ness of XIII 475
— and (between), street railway fare limits, extension
of single fare limits X 314
— , street railway, suburban rates XV 330
— , street railway, routing of cars VIII 295, 535; XIV 788
— , street railway service, adequacy of
I 662; VII 19; XI 338, 430; XIII 178; XV 593
— to Brown Deer, interurban car service IX 534
— , Lake Park, street railway service, adequacy of IV 439
— , street railways, stopping of cars Ill 392
— , street railways, double transfers X 352
772 Localities Index
Vol. and Page
Milwaukee, electric rates IX 541;X613
, electric power rates for charging automobiles VI 64
, express delivery ser\4ce Ill 556
. to Wis. points reached by Wells Fargo & Co., Amer. Ex- ^
press Co., U. S. Express Co., National Express Co.,
Northern Express Co., The Adams Express Co., and
' Western Express Co XII 1
, gas rates, reasonableness of XII . 441
, heating rates, reasonableness of II 302
, issue of license to company to deal in securities XIV 140
, railroad crossing, separation of grades IX 193
, (Aldrich st. crossing of C. & N. W. R. by C. M. & St.
P. R.), railroad crossing, protection of XI 147
— , (Auer avenue) railroad crossing, protection of ..XI -353
— , ("Beer Tracks" at Humboldt ave. and north to Keefe
ave.), railroad crossing, protection of XI 353
— , (Booth street), railroad crossings, protection of XI 353
— , (Bremen street), railroad crossing, protection of XI 353
— , (Brown street), railroad crossing, protection of XI 350
— , (Burleigh street), railroad crossing, protection of .XI 353
— , (Center street, railroad crossing, protection of XI 350
— , (Chambers street), railroad crossing, protection of XI 353
— , (Cherry street), railroad crossing, protection of XI 350
— , (Clark street), railroad crossing, protection of XI 350
— , (Clinton street), railroad crossing, separation of
grades IX 193
— , (Concordia avenue), railroad crossings, protection of. .XI 353
— , (east and west alley in block 10), railroad crossing,
separation of grades IX 193
— , (east and west alley in block 34), railroad crossing,
separation of grades IX 193
— , (Erie street), railroad crossings, protection of XI 344
— , (First ave.), railroad crossing, protection of... XI 360
— , (Florida street), railrpad crossing, separation of grades. IX 193
— , (Fratney street), railroad crossing, protection of XI 353
— , town of, Milwaukee county, (Green Bay road), rail-
road crossing, protection of XI 615
— , (Greenfield ave.), railroad crossing, separation of
grades IX 193
— , (Greenfield ave.) railroad crossing, protection of XI 344
— , (Humbolt ave.), railroad crossing, protection of XI 353
— , (Keefe ave.), railroad crossing, protection of XI 353
— , (Lake street), railroad crossing, separation of grades XI . 193
— , (Locust street), railroad crossing, protection of XI 353
— , (Maple street), railmad crossing, protection of XI 344
— , (Mineral street), railroad crossing, protection of XI 344
— , (Muskegoave.) railroad crossing, protection of IX 515
— , (National ave.), railroad crossings, protection of XI 344
— , (National ave.), railroad crossing, separation of grades. IX 193
Localities Index 773
Vol. and Page
Milwaukee, (North ave.)> railroad crossing, protection of XI 353
, (north and south alley in block 16), railroad crossing,
separation of grades IX 193
, (Oregon street), railroad crossing, separation of grades. IX 193
, town of, Milwaukee county (Port Washington road).
railroad crossing, protection of XI 615
— , (Reed street), railroad crossing, separation of grades IX 193
— , (Second and Clybourn streets), railroad crossings, pro-
tection of XI 344
— , (South Water street), railroad crossing, separation of
grades ^ ' IX 193
— , (between Thirty-fifth street and Fond du Lac ave.),
railroad crossings, protection of... XI 350
— , (Walker street), railroad crossing, separation of grades. IX 193
— , (Walnut street), railroad crossings, protection of XI 350
— , (Washington street), railroad crossings, protection of... XI 344
— , (Washington street), railroad crossings, separation of
grades IX^ 193
— , discrimination between different transfer companies. ...VIII 569
— , Juneau park front, between Juneau ave. and Wis. st.,
nuisances due to switching etc IX 394
— , unloading points within city limits, computation of
distance tariffs IX 347
— , spur track, construction of IV 426
— to Wis. points on the C. & N. W. R. and G. M. & St. P.
R., reasonableness of rates on liquor XI 424
— from Wis. points on the C. B. & Q. R., joint rates on
grain IV . 80
— from Wis. points on W. C. R., rates on ,tanbark,
reasonableness of, and refund II 761
^^ — to Wis. points, reduction of rates on boxes XI 101
— from points in southwestern Wis., rates on cheese,
reasonableness of I 143
— from Wis. points, rates on grain, reasonableness of I 124
— from Wis. points, grain, minimum carload weights Ill 182
— ^ from Wis. points through Fond du Lac, refund on ship-
ments of live stock ...r VIII 532
— to Wis. points, less than carload rates on petroleum
products VI 326
— from Wis. points, with stoppage in transit at Hudson,
refund on shipments of grain IV 488
— from Wis. points, refund on shipments of tanbark Ill 181
— to Wis. points, refund on shipments of vehicles and
agricultural implements VII • 17
— , refund from demurrage charges due to error in ship-
ping directions V 137
— , switching rates XIV 261; XV 564
— and the County Institutions near Wauwatosa, switch-
ing charges between HI 377
774 Localities Index
y
Vol. and Page
Milwaukee from Ablemans, refund on shipments of granite
blocks XIII 669, 671
to Appleton, group rates on coal VI 436
to Beaver Dam, refund on shipment of foundry
patteriis VIII 325
from Blue Mounds, refund onshipment of livestock IX 74
from Boehms, Mclnnis, Scott's Landing, and Teddy,
refund on shipment of tanbark XI 537
to Cashton, refund on shipment of agricultural -
implements Ill 114
, Chestnut St., from Merton, ice rates IV 71
from Corning, refund on shipment of rye IX 62
from Crandon, refund on shipment of wood XI 400
and Cudahy from Wis. points, rates on live stock,
reasonableness of I 778
from Dane, refund on shipments of grain... Ill 391
from De Soto, refund on shipments of grain IV 781
to Fond du Lac, reasonableness of rates on beer XIII 42
from Fond du Lac, refund on shipment of cheese VI 579
to Fox River Valley points, group rates on coal VI 436
from Hawkins, refund on shipment of wood VIII ' 62
— — from Hixton, refund on shipment of oats V 430
to Horicon, refund on shipments of slag XIII 640
to Horicon, reasonableness of rates on sand, and
refund XV 164
to Hurley, refund on shipments of beer IV 766
from Independence, refund on shipments of oats and
rye V 430
from Janesville, reasonableness of rates on rye, and
refund : XV 524
— from Kendall, refund on shipment of oats Ill 182
— to Kenosha, refund on shipment of structural iron VI 540
— from Knowles, refund on shipment of flux stone IV 114
— and La Crosse (between), reasonableness of rates on
bottles, and refund ,. XV 82
— to Lake, refund on shipments of coal, feed and refuse. .X 370
— to Madison, refund on shipment of paper V 293
— from Manitowoc, refund on shipments of hay V 480
— from Mattoon Ry. points, joint rates V 531
— to Mayville, refund on shipment of scrap iron VI 205, 548
— from Mellen, refund on shipment of lumber.... XII 239
— to Necedah, refund on express shipments of baskets....III 342
— from Neenah, refund oji shipment of barley Ill 451
— to Oshkosh, reasonableness of rates on beer XIII 42
— from Oshkosh, refund on shipments of bottle wrappers. IV 333
— to Oshkosh, rates on cement, reasonableness of and
refund : II 298
— from Oshkosh and Fond du Lac, rates on coal, reason-
ablenessof, andrefund XIV 746
Localities Index 775
Vol. and Page
Milwaukee from Owen, refund on shipment of grain XI 272
to Palmyra, rates on coal, reasonableness of II 791
to Portage, refund on shipments of coal VIII 542
from Portage, reasonableness of rates on sand and
refund XV 648
from Portage, refund on shipments of sand XIIJ 684
, Racine and Kenosha from Rhinelander and Odanah,
reasonableness of rates on lumber, and refund -. XV 575
— from Reedsville, refund on demurrage charges on
shipment of hay IX 60
— from Richfield, rates on grain, and refund on shipments. XI II 375
— from Ridgeland, refund on shipment of buckwheat IX 43
— from Rockfield, reasonableness of rates on lime XIII 38
— and Sheboygan (between), reasonableness of rates on
scrap iron XIII 366
— from Silver Springs, reduction of rates and refund on
shipment of ice IX 101; XI 62
— to South Milwaukee, refund on shipments of beer IV 173
— from , refund on shipments of empty beer
packages IV 403
— and , refund on shipments of coal and coke VIII 473
— to and Cudahy, refund on shipments of coal,
coke, etc VII 1
— from , refund on shipments of hardware VIII 316
— from Stetsonville, refund on shipment of grain IX 468
— to Stevens Point, Granite and Amherst, refund on
shipment of bags IX 182
— to Superior, refund on shipment of heating apparatus. XI I 699
— from Sussex, reasonableness of rates, on skimmed milk.XV 532
— to Troy Center, rates on coal, reasonableness of II 75
— from Waukesha, refund on shipment of beer VI 518
— from , rates on beer, reasonableness of V 546
— to , rates on shipments of bottles, reasonableness of
and refund XIV 77
— from , refund on shipment of gravel and crushed
stone XIII 368
— to , refund on shipment of scrap iron Ill 383
— from — — , refund on shipment of stone IX 167
— to Wausau, group rates on coal VI 436
— to Wauwatosa, refund on shipment of coal VIII 477
— to , refund on shipment of coal VI 531
— from Westboro, refund on shipments of tanbark XIII 378
— to West Milwaukee, switching rates on building
material and refund on shipments XIII 673
— to Wis. River Valley points, group rates on coal VI 436
— (AUis), station facilities IV 161
— (between North Ave. and Folsom st,), station
facihties, and train service XII 439
776 Localities Index
Vol. and Page
Milwaukee (northern section), station facilities and train
service, adequacy of XI 333
, telephone rates from hotel rooms V 678; VI 432
, telephone service and facilities Ill 186
, telephone service, regulation requiring deposit as
prerequisite for service IV 150
, telephone service, "silent number" phones ...XIII 587
to Seymour, railroad freight service ,.XIII 322
to Shiocton, railroad freight service XIII 322
to Black Creek, railroad freight service XIII 322
to , Shiocton and Seymour, train service, ade-
quacy of IX 530
(State Fair Park), train service, adequacy of XV 110
, uniform accounts, water utilities VIII 406
, water meters, installation of XI 195
Mineral Point, railroad' crossing, restoration and mainten-
nance of highway VIII 693
from points on G. & N. W. R., reasonableness of rates
on cheese .XV 217
from Wis. points on the C. & N. W. R., C. M. & St.
P. R. and M. Pt. & N. R., establishment of joint rates on
zinc ore VII 583
, telephone rates IX 285; XV 182
, telephone switching rates ; XV 70
, telephone utilities, physical connection XV 185
, telephone utilities, reapportionment of toll earnings XV 60
and Dodgeville, telephone utilities, physical connec-
tion IX 285
and Highland (between), train service, adequacy of... XI 643
— — and Janesville (between), train service, adequacy of XI 569
Minnesota Jet. from La Crosse, rates on dried brewers' grains V 705
, train service VI 581
Minocqua and Tomahawk, from Wausau, rates on ship-
ments of beer, reasonableness of, and refund XIV 508
from Wausau, reasonableness of rates on lumber and
refund XV 521
from Wausau, reasonableness of rates on beer XIII 527
Mondovi from Richland Center, refund on shipments and
joint rates on empty cheese boxes V 551
, train service on the Mondovi branch of the C. St. P.
M. & O. R Ill 578
Monico to Black Creek, refund on shipment of logs VIII 544
Monroe, electric rates XIV 227
-- — (Main street), railroad crossing, protection of XIV - 176
(Payne street and Madison street), railroad crossing,
protection of XIV 118
from Madison, car service, refrigerator cars IX 240
from Racine Jet., refund on shipments of springs IV 384
from , rates on vehicle springs VIII 36
Localities Index 111
Vol. and Page
Monroe to West Bend, refund on shipment of scrap iron and
establishment of joint rate : VIII 328
to , refund on shipment of scrap iron IV 268
Montello, train service, adequacy of I 724
and Packwaukee (between), train service, adequacy of ..II 355
Montfort Jet. to Benton, Cuba City, Livingston, Platteville
and Rewey, train service, adequacy of X 500
Montfort, water rates and accounting precedure XI 278
Monticello, electric rates XI 265
, (about % miles north) (Woolen Mills crossing), rail-
road crossing, separation of grades XII 749
from Madison, car service, refrigerator cars IX 240
, train service IX 389
Montpelier, town of, telephone utility, extension of lines XIV 219
Montrose, town of (Gribbin's crossing), railroad crossing,
protection of XIII 613
Moorland (M. L. H. & T. crossing), interurban railway
crossing, protection of XII 358
(C. & N. W. R. crossing), railroad crossing, protection
of XII 358
Morehouse, train service Ill 262
Mormon Coulee Road (crossing near Calvert), railroad
grade crossing, protection of VIII 519
Moseley, telephone utilities, physical connection IX 189
Mosinee, electric rates for pumping XIV 743
, electric rates, reasonableness of XIII 712
, station facilities, adequacy of XIV 553; XV 311
, telephone rates XIV 709
Mountain from Oakfield, refund on shipments of lime VII ■, 149
to Oshkosh, rates on logs, reasonableness of. II 116
Mt. Horeb, electric rates VI 44; XIII 653
(Sixth street), railroad crossing, separation of grades XII , 495
(1st, 2nd, 4th and 8th streets), railroad crossings, pro-
tection of ; X 623
from La Farge, refund on shipment of lumber VI 528
, station facilities XII 369
and Madison, train service between VIII 320
Mt. Pleasant, town of, Green county (Woolen Mills cross-
ing), railroad crossing, separation of grades XII 749
Mukwonaga (crossing % mile south) (crossing 0.9 mile
south) (Front crossing), railroad crossings, protection of... XIII • 32
, telephone rates, reasonableness of XV 397
, warehouse site on railroad right of way XIV 251
Muscoda, toll bridge rates, reasonableness of XIII 47
, telephone rates, reasonableness of XI 666
, town of, telephone utilities, extension of line ..XV 166
, telephone utilities, adequacy of service XV 578
778 Localities Index
IS
I
Vol. and Page
Necedah from Milwaukee, refund on express shipments of
baskets Ill 342
, telephone rates and service >. VIII 399
Neenah to Oshkosh, interurban passenger cars, heating facili-
ties ' Ill 400
, interurban rates and fare zones VIII 709
, joint rates and interchange of traffic between street
railway and interurban railway IV 471
, joint street railway rates between the Wis. Tr. Lt.
H. & P. Co., and the Wis. El. R. Co VI 398, 690
, municipal acquisition of business of electric utility XV 626
, gas rates VII 477; VIII 251
, railroad grade crosgting, protection of VIII 463
— — from Wis. points on the M. St. P. & S. S. M. R., reduc-
tion of rates on wood XI 393
Menasha from Wis. points on W. C. R., rates on pulp
wood, reasonableness of I 234
to Wis. points, reduction of rates on pulp wood IX 111
— - — from Arpin, rates on shipment of fuel wood and fence ^
posts, reasonableness of and refund... XIV 707
from Embarrass, wood bolts, reasonableness of rates.. ..IV 248
from Lake Michigan ports in Wis., group rates on coal... VI 436
■ to Milwaukee, refund on shipment of barley Ill 451
• , water rates and service , XI 119
Nekoosa from Wis. points on the M. St. P. & S. S. M. R.,
reduction of rates and refund on shipment of wood XI 393
from Rhinelander, restoration of joint commodity
rate VIII 58
• from Wis. points, reduction of rates and refund on
shipment of pulp wood IX 111
to Janesville, reasonableness of rates on rye, and
refund XV 524
from Lake Michigan ports in Wis. group rates on coal.VI 436
Neillsville to Dunham, refund on shipment of potatoes VI 667
, telephone rates...! \ XIV 407
Neopit to Crandon, refund on shipment of lumber and
establishment of joint rate VIII 247
to Horicon, petition for joint rates and refund on
shipments VIII 247
Neshkoro, electric rates .- VIII 52
New Auburn, telephone rates IV 259
New Berlin, interurban car service, stopping of cars V 525
, town of (crossings at Moorland and Sunny Slope),
railroad and interurban railway crossings, protection of . ... XI I 358
Newbold, station facilities, adequacy of XV 326
Newburg, proposed interurban line V 466
Localities Index 779
Vol. and Page
New Glarus, electric rates XI 53
, train service IX 389
, water rates XI 711
New Holstein, grade crossing, protection of IV 364
, Chilton, Hay ton and Kiel from Manitowoc, joint rates
on barley, reasonableness of I 69
, Kiel, Elkhart and Chilton from Manitowoc, joint rates,
establishment of I 19
to Sheboygan, joint rates on barley established
between the C. M. & St. P. R. Co. and the C. & N. W.
R. Co V 668
, train service VI 5
New Lisbon (Marshall crossing near), railroad grade crossing
protection of VIII 511
, telephone rates XV 280
, telephone rates and service VIII ' 399
, telephone utilities, physical connection XII 213
, train service VI 534
New London to La Crosse, rates on slab wood, reasonable-
ness of, and refund XIV 138
from Watertown, refund on shipment of coke VIII 566
from Wausau, reasonableness of rates on lumber and
wooden boxes XIII 772
from , refund on shipments of wooden boxes XIII 698
Jet., train service, adequacy of XV 588
New Richmond (Second st.), (Third st.), railroad crossings,
protection of XV 752
from Knapp, rates on grain, reasonableness of and
refund II 610
, station facilities, adequacy of XV 615
, station facilities and public convenience* and necessity
for union station XIV 556
, telephone utility, extension of line XV 241
, Apple river in, franchise to construct water power
dam XV 712
Newry, station facilities VI 1
, switch connections, establishment of II 66
North Fond du Lac, from Racine, reasonableness of .rates
on coke XIII 694
, station facilities, adequacy of I 27, 60
North Freedom, Reedsburg and Ablemans to Basco, joint
rates on grain, establishment of I 599
North Kaukauna, railroad crossings, separation of grades. ...IX 322
North Lake (1 mile east of), (Monsted crossing), railroad
crossing, protection of..... XI 606
North Menomonie, train service and station facilities,
adequacy of X 478
North Milwaukee, electric rates IV 89
780 Localities Index
Vol. and Page
North Milwaukee to Racine Jet., refund on shipment of auto
gear frames XI 709
North Prairie from Ladysmith, refund on shipments and
reduction of joint rates V 655
Norwalk, telephone rates XV 222
Norwood, town of, telephone utility, extension of line XIV 329
o
Oak Center, railroad crossing, protection of XII 683
Oakfield to Hackley and Mountain, refund on shipments of
lime '. VII 149
to Fond du jLac, telephone rates XIII 726
Oakwood from Waukesha, reasonableness of rates on lime... XI 419
Oconomowoc and Milwaukee, interurban railway between,
application for a certificate of public convenience and
necessity Ill 288
(Main St.), railroad crossing, protection of XII 84
, water rates, minimum charge XIV 394
Oconto, electric rates XII 584
to Marinette, refund on shipment of lumber IX 37
, switch connections VIII 67
, regulations as to payment of rates V 691
, water meters, location of....: X 584
-, water rates VII 497; VIII 388
Odanah and Rhinelander to Milwaukee, Racine and
Kenosha, reasonableness of rates on lumber, and refund. XV 575
to Sparta, refund of drayage charges VIII 507
Okauchee, station facilities, adequacy of II 88
Omdoll's crossing, between Palmyra and Whitewater,
station facilities for milk shipments XII 696
Onalaska, street railway, service and station facilities VI 124
, telephone rates XV 831
Oostburg, telephone rates IV 407
Oregon, telephone rates Ill 534
, Waaler rates ". XI 548
Osceola, town of, railroad crossing, change of location IX 339
from Wis. points, refund on shipment of grain V 291
from Wis. points, refund on shipments of rye and
barley IV 483
from Almena, refund on shipments of grain V 291
from Amery, Hillsdale and 'Poskin Lake, refund on
shipments of grain V 291
to Rhinelander, rates on shipment of hay, reason-
ableness of and refund XIV 759
from Ridgeland, refund on shipments of grain V 291
, switch connections, adequacy of I 166, 204, 608; XV 416
Oshkosh, safety of bridges VIII 441
Localities Index 781
Vol. and Page
Oshkosh (West Algoma street bridge), highway bridge over
which railway is operate^, safety of IX 357
, interurban rates and fare zones VIII 709
and Fond du Lac, interurban railway rates and fare
zones VI 473
to Neenah, interurban passenger cars, heating
facihties Ill 400
• , railroad grade crossings, protection of VIII 75, 291
• , town of (immediately south of depot at state hospital),
railroad crossing, protection of XII ' 372
, demurrage charges on shipments of logs XIII 633
from Wis. points on La Farge branch of C. M. & St.
P. R., reduction of rates on lumber VIII 131
from Catawba, refund on shipment of wood.. VI 669
and Fond du Lac to Milwaukee, rates on coal, reason-
ableness of and refund XIV 746
to , refund 6n shipments of fruit V 675
to Fort Atkinson, refund on shipment of motor boat. ...IV 498
from Mattoon Ry. points, joint rates V 531
and Menasha, from points in Wis. on the M. St. P. &
S. S. M. R., reasonableness of rates on bolts, and refund. ... XV 178
from Milwaukee, reasonableness of rates on beer XIII 42 '
from , rates on cement, reasonableness of and re-
fund ■ II 298
to , refund on shipments of bottle wrappers IV 333
from Mountain, rates on logs, reasonableness of II 116
from Racine and Racine Jet., refund on shipment of
springs and axles IX 180
from , refund on shipment of vehicle springs VIII 283
and Readfield from Shawano, rates on lumber, reason-
ableness of II , 775
from Rice Lake, rates on pine trimmings, reasonableness
of I 197^
to Ripon, refund on shipment of logs IX 484
, sleeping car service, adequacy of XV 606
, water utility, municipal acquisition XII 602
Osseo, telephone rates XII 126
Owen to Milwaukee, refund on shipment of grain XI 272
, telephone service XIII 538
, telephone utilities, physical connection XIV 419
P
Packwaukee and Montello (between), train service, ade-
quacy of II 355
Palmyra from Milwaukee, rates on coal, reasonableness of II 791
, (gravel pit near) switch connections IX 156
, telephone rates XV 397
Pardeeville, electric rates II 135
782 Localities Index
Vol. and Page
Park Falls from Ellis Jet., reduction of joint rate and refund
on shipment of pulp XI 699
to Kimberly, cancellation of joint trainload rates on
pulp wood VIII 105
, telephone rates XV 180
, water rates r. XV 284
Patzu, station facilities, adequacy of XI 318
Pembine from Goodman, refund on shipment of logs IX 41
Pepin, train service, adequacy of II , 765
Peshtigo, from Wis. points on the C. & N.W. R., rates on
shipment of logs, reasonableness of and refund XIV 624
, from Brown's Spur and Bagley Jet., reasonableness of
rates on logs, and refund XV 43
from Taylor Rapids, rates on cedar posts, reasonable-
ness of, and refund XIV 188
Peterson's Spur to Ashland, refund on shipments of logs IV 193
Pewaukee from Waukesha, reasonableness of rates on lime XI 419
, telephone rates... Ill 420; VII 465
, telephone utility, extension of line XIV 131
., train service XII 690
Phillips from Kennan, reduction of rates and refund on ship-
ments of wood XIII 687
Phlox, telephone utility, extension of line XIV 329
Pittsville, train service, adequacy of , XIV 573
Plain, telephone rates VI 549; XIV 157
Platteville, telephone rates and discrimination VII 608; X 534
, telephone utilities, interference of high voltage trans-
mission lines XV 622
fromMontfort Jet., train service, adequacy of X 500
Pleasant Prairie, town of (Spring Brook road at Bain sta-
tion), railroad crossing, protection of XI 557
, town of (Bain station), station facilities, adequacy of.... XI 578
Plover (First street), railroad crossing, protection of XI 727
Plymouth, proposed interurban line V 466
, station facilities ; VII 770
, telephone rates .' IX 169
Polk, town of (Fond du Lac or Rothenbach crossing, north
of Rugby Jet.), railroad crossing, protection of XI 575
, town of (north of Rugby Jet.), railroad crossing, pro-
tection of XI 589
Policy, station facilities, adequacy of IX 342
Portage electric rates II 258
gas rates :?: XIII 136
(Cass street), railroad crossing, protection of XIII 749
from Wis.. points, concentration rates on butter and
eggs Ill 1
to Milwaukee, reasonableness of rates on sand, and
refund XV 648
— from ,frefund on shipments of coal VIII 542
Localities Index 783
Vol. and Page
Portageto Milwaukee, refund on shipments of sand XIII G84
to Racine, refund on shipment of sand XIII 684
and Kilbourn (between), station facilities, adequacy of. . I 254
and Wyocena (sand and gravel bed between), spur
track VI 556
, telephone rates II 692
aAd points wtsst, train service :...XII 560
and Madison, train service between XII 560
and Stevens Point (between), train service, adequacy
of II 32, 92
Port Edwards from Wis. points, reduction of rates and re-
fund on shipment of pulp wood IX 111
from Wis. points on the M. St. P. & S. S. M. R., re-
duction of rates and refund on shipment of wood XI 393
from Grand Rapids, reasonableness of rates on "hog
fuel", and refund XV 527
from Rhinelander, restoration of joint commodity rate.. VI 1 1 58
Port Washington (Park ave.) (Webster street), interurban
railway crossings, protection of XII 550
, town of, Ozaukee county (Knellsville crossing), inter-
urban crossing, protection of XII 550
from Antigo (Heinemann's Mill), refund on shipments
of slabs and slabwood VI 222
from Crandon, refund on shipments of wood Ill 594
from Waukesha, reasonableness of rates on lime XI 419
Porter's Mills, station facilities, adequacy of XV ^ 8
Poskin Lake to Osceola, refund on shipments of grain V 291
Potter, station facilities XII 552
Prairie du Chien, electric rates and service XII 413
, telephone utility, checking station, establishment of. ..XIV 568
and Bridgeport (between), telephone rates XII 140
and Eastman (between), telephone rates XII 140
and Madison (between), Sunday train service, ade-
quacy of XV 652
Prairie du Sac, municipal acquisition, electric utility...... XV 360
• , regulation of height of dam XV 471
from Richland Center, refund on shipment of lumber
and reduction of rates VI 184
, telephone rates ,VI 549; XI 42
Prentice, train service, adequacy of XIII 790
Prescott, electric service IX 222
— ^ — , telephone rates XIV 701
Princeton, from Ladysmith, refund on shipments of lumber
and reduction of joint rates V 647
, bridged telephone service v XV 475
Progress, train service VI 534
Pulaski to Marinette, refund on shipment of oats V 432
, telephone service, withdrawal of X 558
784 Localities Index
Vol. and Page
Quarry, station facilities and passenger rates I 285
R
Racine (5 mile road north of), interurban railway crossing,
protection of X 420
, interurban railway service XII 388
and Caledonia (between), interurban rates, commu-
tation tickets XIII 475
— \ — , street railway service and rates XIV 148
, gas rates VI 228
(43^ miles north of),, railroad crossing, separation of
grades... X 618; XIV 454
(Eleventh street), railroad crossing, protection of XII 407
(Maple street), railroad crossing, separation of grades
at Mound ave XI 740; XIV, 783
(Mound ave.), railroad crossing, separation of grades .XI 740
(Ninth street), railroad crossing, protection of XII 407
(Rapids Road), railroad crossing, protection of ...IX 354
(Racine street), (Sixteenth street), (Tenth street), '
(Thirteenth street), (Twlefth street), railroad crossings
protection of XII 407
, spur track, construction of XIV 114
, demurrage charges on shipments of stone XIV 449
from Beaver, refund on shipment of slabs VI 199
to Green Bay and Oshkosh, refund on shipment of
springs and axles IX 180
, Kenosha & Milwaukee from Rhinelander and Odanah,
reasonableness of rates on lumber, and refund XV 575
from Mattoon Ry. points, joint rates V 531
to North Foi)d du Lac, reasonableness of rates on coke... XIII 694
to Oshkosh, refund on shipment of vehicle springs VIII 283
from Portage, refund on shipment of sand XIII 684
from Rockfield, reasonableness of rates on lime XIII 38
to Stoughton, refund on shipment of vehicle springs.... VI 1 1 36
from Waukesha, reasonableness of rates on lime XI 419
from , refund on shipment of gravel and crushed
stone XIII 368
from Weyerhauser, refund on shipments and reduc-
tion of joint rates V 655
-, water utility, municipal acquisition X 543
Racine Jet. from Beaver Dam, rates on castings, reason-
ableness of and refund II 703
to Green Bay and Oshkosh, refund on shipment of
springs and axles IX 180
Localities Index 785
Vol. and Page
Racine Jet. to Janesville, Monroe, vStoughton, Edgcrton and
Madison, rates on vehicle springs .' VIII 36
to Monroe and Stoughton, refund on shipments of
springs IV 384
from North Milwaukee, refund on shipment of auto
gear frames XI 709
from Rockfield, reasonableness of rates on lime XIII 38
^om Waukesha, refund on shipment of gravel and
crushed stone XIII 368
from , reasonableness of rates on lime XI 419
Raddison to Birch wood, reasonablesness of rates on logs' V 441
Randolph, town of Courtland (2}4 miles west), railroad
crossing, protection of XII 501
, telephone rates XI 499
, telephone rates and service VIII 92
Random Lake {% mile south), railroad crossing, protection
of XII 516
to Sheboygan, joint rates on barley established
between the G. M. & St. P. R. and the C. & N. W. R V , 668
, telephone rates XI 130
, telephone utility, extension of line XIV 802
Readfield and Oshkosh from Shawano, rates on lumber,
reasonableness of II 775
, station facilities, and train service XII 506
, telephone utilities, physical connection XIV 102
, train service, adequacy of XIV 247
from Wis. points, concentration rates on butter and
eggs Ill 32
from Wis. points, refund on shipments of eggs Ill 335, 338
Reedsburg, Ablemans, North Freedom to Basco, joint rates
on grain, establishment of I 589
Reedsville to Milwaukee, refund of demurrage charges on
shipment of hay IX 60
Remington, town of, railroad crossing, construction of.. XV 609
Reserve, station facilities, adequacy of XIV 340
Rest Lake, regulation of level and flow of water XV 438
Rewey, telephone rates and discrimination VII 608; X 534
from Montfort Jet. train service, adequacy of X 500
Rhine, town of, railroad crossing, restoration and main-
tenance of highway V 184
Rhinelander, electric rates IX 406; XV 783
from Wis. points, reasonableness of rates on pulp wood .VIII 105
, discrimination in switching rates on lumber XI 476
from Wis. points, reasonableness of rates on logs, and
refund XV 569
from Wis. points, reduction of rates and refund on
shipment of pulp wood IX 111
from Wis. points on the M. St. P. & _^S. S. M. R.,
reduction of rates and refund on shipment of wood XI 393
786 Localities Index
Vol. and Page
Rhinelander, rates on car stakes, reasonableness of, and
refund XIV 204
, sw.itching rates on lumber, reasonableness of and
refund XIV 82
to Armstrong Creek, refund on shipments of car stakes. XI 1 1 84
from Gotten, rates on shipment of lumber, reasonable-
ness of, and refund XIV 754
from , reasonableness of rates on lumber, and refund XV 473
to Grand Rapids, Pt. Edwards, Nekoosa, and Stevens
Point, and intermediate points, restoration of joint com-
modity rate VIII 58
to Ladysmith, refund on shipments of wood pulp IV 360
to Madison, refund on shipment of wood IV 478
and Odanah to Milwaukee, Racine and Kenosha,
reasonableness of rates on lumber and refund XV 575
from Osceola, rates on shipment of hay, reasonable-
ness of and refund XIV 759
— — from Robbin's Railway Transfer, reasonableness of
rates on lumber /. XV 388
from Robbin's Railway Transfer, reasonableness of
rates on wood, and refund XV 171
to Rothschild, refund on shipment of pulp VIII 58
to Star Lake, refund on shipment of lumber VIII 125; XI 434
to Stevens Point, refund on shipment of print paper VI , 182
from Tripoli, McGord and Brantwood, reasonableness
of rates on wood, and refund XV 171
to Wausau, refund on shipments of lumber IV 768
to Whitehall, refund on shipments of lumber V 729
, station facilities VIII 719
, telephone rates......... II 427
Rib Falls to Wausau, refund on shipments of lumber IV 356
Rib Lake to Chelsea, railroad rates VII 401
to Spirit Falls, operation of branch railroad IV 178; VII 401
from Spirit Falls, railroad rates VII ' 401
Rice Lake, electric rates VI 717
— ^ from Gampia, refund on shipment of logs X 564
to Ft. Atkinson, rates on excelsior, reasonableness of,
and refund XIV 225
to Janesville, refund on shipment of excelsior Ill 595
from La Crosse, refund on shipment of beer VI 18
to Oshkosh, rates on pine trimmings, reasonableness of. I 197
to Superior, rates on shipment of excelsior, reasonable-
ness of and refund XIV 544
to Waukesha, refund on shipments of excelsior XIII 635
Richfield, railroad grade crossing, protection of: VIII 287
— — (crossing 1 }4 miles north of Colgate), railroad crossing,
protection of XIII 623
, town of (south of Rugby Jet.), railroad crossing, pro-
tection of XI 586
Localities Index 787
Vol. and Page
Richfield to Milwaukee, rates on grain, and refund on ship-
ments XIII 375
from Waukesha, reasonableness of rates on lime XI 419
Richland Center, electric and water rates XIV 590
from Blue River, refund on shipment of rye VI 178
to Dodgeville, refund on shipment of cheese boxes, and
establishment of joint rates IV 450
to Lancaster, refund on shipment of cheese boxes IX 517
to Mondovi, refund on shipments and joint rates on
cheese boxes V 551
to Prairie du Sac, refund on shipment of lumber and
reduction of rates VI 184
toStoughton, refund on shipment of lumber VIII 32
, telephone rates... IX 369
, telephone rates and service Ill 98
, telephone utilities, physical connection XIV 655
Richmond, town of (one mile east of Thornton), railroad
crossing, protection of XIV 546; XV 309
Rickerd's spur to Washburn, refund on shipments of logs....V 666
Ridgeland to Milwaukee, refund on shipment of buckwheat.. IX 43
to Osceola, refund on shipments of grain V 291
Rio, telephone rates XI 499
, telephone rates and service... VIII 92
Ripon, electric, gas and water rates and service V 1
(Doty street) (East Fond du Lac street) (Fall street)
(Fenton street) (Jackson street) (Scott street), railroad
crossings, protection of XII 100
, telephone rates XIV 427
from Wis. points on the C. & N. W. R., refund on
shipment of logs IX 484
from Oshkosh, Glenbeulah and Stratford, refund on
shipment of logs "...IX 484
, station facilities, adequacy of XI 90
Ripon Jet., station facilities, adequacy of XI 90
River Falls to Columbus, rates on seed peas, reasonableness
of, and refund XIV 97
from La Crosse, refund on shipments of beer IV 190
Robbin's Railway Transfer to Rhinelander, reasonableness
of rates on wood, and refund 7. XV 171
to Rhinelander, reasonableness of rates on lumber : . . . .XV 388
Roberts, warehouse site on railroad's right of way V 207
Rock, town of, telephone utility, extension of lines XIV 396,441
Rock Elm, telephone utility, extension of line XV 11
Rockfield, from Wis. points, refund on shipments of wood. ...Ill 590
to Wis. points (designated) on C. & N. W. R., reason-
ableness of rates on lime XIII 38
from Waukesha, reasonableness of rates on lime XI 419
Rockford, 111,, from Butternut, refund on shipment of lum-
ber, legality of I 300
788 Localities Index
Vol. and Page
Rockland, town of, telephone rates XI 402
Rock river in Janesville, navigable waters, obstructions in
stream XIV 190
in Mayville, level and flow of water XV 698
Romadka, train service VI 534
Rothschild from Bagdad, establishment of joint rates and
refund on shipment of pulp wood XI 127
to Brokaw, refund on shipment of pulp IX 400; XIII 690
■ from Rhinelander, refund on shipment of pulp VIII 58
Rugby Jet. (1st crossing north of), railroad crossing, pro-
tection of ..^ XI 589
(north of), railroad crossing, protection of XI 575
—. — (south of), raifrjoad crossing, protection of XI 586
Russian to Wausau, refund on shipment of logs XI 281
s
St. Cloud, station facilities XII 519
St. Croix Falls, town of (Pickey's crossing), railroad cross-
ing, protection of XII 529
St. John, station facilities, adequacy of I 34
St. Joseph, town of, (about 1 }4 miles northeast of Burkhart),
railroad crossing, protection of XI 737
Salem, railroad crossing, protection of XI 322
(1 mile east of), railroad crossing, protection of X 510
Sauk City, railroad telephone service, power of state to
regulate Ill 346
, telephone rates VI 549
Saukville from Waukesha, reasonableness of rates on lime... XI 419
Scandinavia and Waupaca from Gravel Pit, reasonableness
of rates on sand and gravel XV 482
Schiocton from Milwaukee, train service, adequacy of IX 530
Schleisingerv^ille (^ mile east of), (Fernhaber crossing),
railroad crossing, separation of grades XI 86
(1 mile east of). Mud Lake crossing, railroad crossing,
protection of IX 528
from Waukesha, reasonableness of rates on lime XI 419
from Weyerhauser, refund on shipments and reduc-
tion of joint rates V 655
, station facilities VI 663
Schneider's Spur to Cumberland, refund on shipments of logs..V 645
Schofield, street railway rates and service., XV 246
to Crandon, refund on shipments of lumber Ill 467
Scott, town of, telephone utility, extension of line XIV 802
Scott's Landing to Milwaukee, refund on shipment of tan-
bark XI 537
Scotts to Kenosha, refund on shipment of tanbark XI 537
to Sheboygan, refund on shipment of tanbark XI 537
Seeley to Washburn, refund on shipments of bolts XII 192
Localities Index 789
Vol. and Page
Sevastopol, telephone utility, certificate of public con-
venience and necessity XIV 524
Seymour from Milwaukee, railroad freight service XIII 322
from Wis. points on C. & N. W. R. reduction of joint
rates VIII 544
, Sunday train service VIII 524
from Milwaukee, train service, adequacy of IX 530
Sharon, municipal acquisition of electric utility XV 238
, gas and water rates and installation of meters VIII 479
, water rates and service XIII 1
Shawano to Oshkosh and Readfield, rates on lumber,
reasonableness of 1 1 775
to Western Siding, refund on shipment of salt VI 497
Sheboygan, certificate of public convenience and necessity... XIV 215
, electric rates and service II 249; VI 353
, electric street lighting rates XIV 208
, gas rates .^ ^ IX 439; XI 309
, railroad crossing facilities :....VIII 467
, and points on G. & N. W. R. and the C. M. & St. P. ,
R, (between), rates on peas and beans XV 641
from Adell, joint rates on barley established between
the C. M. & St. P. R., and the G. & N. W. R V 668
from Algonac, Boehms, Bunkers and Scotts, refund on
shipment of tanbark XI 537
to Appleton, group rates on coal VI 436
from Ghilton, joint rates on barley established between
the G. M. & St. P. R. and the G. & N. W. R V 668
from Elkhart, joint rates on barley established
between the G. M. & St. P. R. and the G. & N. W. R V 668
to Fox River Valley points, group rates on coal VI 436
from Heineman branch of G. & N. W. R., refund on
shipment of tanbark XI 141
— — from Hilbert Jet., joint rates on barley established
between the G. M. & St. P. R. and the G. & N. W. R V 668
from Kiel, joint rates on barley established between
the G. M. & St. P. R. and the G. & N. W. R ...V 668
from Marshfield, rates on excelsior X 641
from Mattoon Ry. points, joint rates V 531
and Milwaukee (between), reasonableness of rates on
scrap iron XIII 366
from New Holstein, joint rates on barley established
between the G. M. & St. P. R. and the G. & N. W. R V 668
from Random Lake, joint rates on barley established
between the G. M. & St. P. R. and the G. & N. W. R V 668
and Sheboygan Falls (between), reasonableness of
rates on scrap iron XIII 366
from Waldo, joint rates on barley established between
the G. M. & St. P. R. and the G. & N. W. R V 668
to Wausau, group rates on coal VI 436
790 Localities Index
Vol. and Page
•Sheboygan to Wis. River Valley points, group rates on coal.. VI 436
, water rates. V 434; XIV 634
, water works, municipal acquisition Ill 371
Sheboygan Falls, Green Bay road, railroad crossing,
protection of IX ' 525
and Sheboygan (between), reasonableness of rates
on scrap iron XIII 366
Shell Lake, station facilities, adequacy of telephone service.. XV " 33
Shennington, telephone utilities, physical connection XII 213
Shepley, station facilities, adequacy of XIII 427
Sheridan (550 feet west of depot), railroad crossing, protec-
tion of , , XI 624
Sherman, town of, telephone utility, extension of line XIV 757, 802
Shiocton from Milwaukee, railroad freight service XIII 322
, telephone rates XI 180
Signer to Eau Claire, refund on shipment of wood VIII 38
Silver Springs to Cudahy, reduction of rates on ice XI 171
to Milwaukee, reduction of rates and refund on
shipment of ice.... IX 101; XI 62
Smith's Spur to Merrill, refund on shipment of logs XI 725
Snells (crossing, just north of), reconstruction of culverts... XV 366
Snyders to Wis. points on C. & N. W. R., joint rates and
service XII 761
Solon Springs to Superior, East End Station, refund on
shipments of lumber and establishment of lower rate V 721
Somers, town of (Broesch road), inter urban railway crossing,
protection of XII 377
, town of (Berryville road), (Burlington road), (Hansche
road), railroad crossings, protection of XI 581
from Waukesha, reasonableness of rates on lime XI 419
Somerset (Stillwater road crossing), railroad crossing,
protection of XI 730
South Janesville, interurban railway rates VI 695
South Milwaukee from Antigo (Heinemann's Mill), refund
on shipments of slabs and slabwood VI 222
from Hatley, refund on shipments of cordwood VI 222
from Milwaukee, refund on shipments of beer IV 173
to , refund on shipments of beer packages IV 403
from , refund on shipments of coal, coke, etc VII 1
and , refund on shipments of coal and coke VIII 473
to y refund on shipments of hardware VIII 316
South Range, station facilities, adequacy of IX 477
South Superior, spur track Ill 283
Sparta (South Water St.), railroad crossing, protection of... XI 165
, track connections and switching charges IX 66
to Elroy, refund on shipment of coal IX 396
, Madison, Janesville, and Watertown, from Wis. points
on G. B. & W. R., joint rates on tobacco, reasonableness
of : II 807
Localities Index ' 791
Vol. and Page
Sparta from Odanah, refund on drayage charges VIII 507
, station facilities, adequacy of X 556; XIII 679; XV 227
, water rates XII 532
Spencer (near Clark street), railroad crossing, protection of... XIV 108
(Clark street) (Main street), railroad crossings, pro-
tection of XII 525
Spirit Falls and Rib Lake, operation of branch line and rail-
road rates IV 178; VII 401
Spooner, telephone rates XIV 499
Springbrook, station facilities VIII 285
— — , telephone utility, extension of line XIV 457
, warehouse site on railroad right of way XII 557
Spring Green, telephone switching rates XIII 763; XV 315
» telephone rates VI 549
Spring Valley, electric rates XII 548
to Eau Claire, refund on shipment of lumber Ill 66
to Woodland, refund on shipment gf lumber XII 131
and Woodville (between), train service, adequacy of XIV 775
Stanley from Bellinger and Oilman (siding between), refund
on shipment of posts IX 64
from Marinette, rates on carload of box shooks, reason-
ableness of, and refund XIV 84
Stanton, town of, Dunn county (McCuUoch crossing), rail-
road crossing, protection of XI 595
Star Lake to Grand Rapids, rates on logs, reasonableness of
and refund .* II 773
to Merrill, refund on shipment of logs V 596
from Rhinelander, refund on shipment of lumber. ...VIII 125; XI 434
Star Prairie, town of (Apple River in), franchise to construct
water power dam..: XV 712
Stetsonville to Milwaukee, refund on shipment of grain IX 468
, telephone rates Ill 586; IX 497
and Athens, telephone toll rates between Ill 586
and Curtiss, telephone toll rates for n onsubscribers Ill 586
and Dorchester, telephone toll rates for nonsubscribers ..III 586
, train service, adequacy of I 139
Stevens Point, electric rates, gas and electric service XIV 350
from Little Rapids, refund on shipment of wood pulp.. ..VIII 64
from Milwaukee, refund on shipment of bags IX 182
from Rhinelander, refund on shipment of print paper VI 182
from ; restoration of joint commodity rate VIII 58
and Portage (between), train service, adequacy of II 32, 92
, water rates and service VI 458
Stiles to Ladysmith, refund on shipment of wood pulp VI 586
Stiles, train service, adequacy of II 32
Stinson Spur to Eau Claire, refund on shipments of logs V 196
Stockbridge, proposed interurban line V 466
Stockton, industrial track XIII 620
Stoughton, electric rates Ill 484
792 Localities Index
Vol. and Page
wSloughton, refund of demurrage charge on shipment of
lumber VII 388
from Kaiser, refund on shipment of lumber XI 267
from Racine, refund on shipment of vehicle springs VIII 36
from Racine Jet., rates on vehicle springs VIII 36
from , refund on shipments of springs IV ^ 384
from Richland Center, refund on shipment of lumber VIII 32
, station facilities, adequacy of X 486
Stratford, electric rates and service VIII 80
(Rock crossing, about 2 miles north), railroad cross-
ing, protection of XIII 729
to Fosterville, refund on shipment of hay XIII 468
and Holder (between), rates on logs, reasonableness of.
adequacy of train service and station facilities I 831
— to Ripon, refund on shipment of logs IX 484
train service, adequacy of * II 78
Strickland, station facilities, adequacy of II 514
Sturgeon Bay, toll bridge rates and repairs VII 727
(north from), telephone utility, certificate of public
convenience and necessity XIV 524
Sullivan, town of (Jefferson street and Palmyra road), rail-
road crossing, protection of XIV 320
, town of, (Radiske and Golden Lake crossings), rail-
road crossings, protection of XIV 320
from Waukesha, reasonableness of rates on lime XI 419
Summit, station facilities, adequacy of II 575
, train service Ill 115
Sunnyside to Bayfield, rates on logs, reasonableness of and
minimum weight ...XIV 2^3,601
— — , train service and station facilities, adequacy of XV 459
Sunny Slope (C. & N. W. R. crossing), railroad crossing, ^
protection of XII 358
(M. L. H. & T. crossing), interurban railway crossing,
protection of XII 358
Sun Prairie, electric rates XV 189
, station faciUties, adequacy of XIV 332
, telephone rates and service VI 187, 647
Superior, street railway rates XI 1
, electric, gas and water rates, and water service X 704
, application of the M. St. P. & S. S. M. R. Co. for a
certificate of convenience and necessity V 637
, construction of railroad, approval of specifications II 386
, railroad construction Ill 266
, railroad crossing, construction of II 362
, town of, railroad crossing, construction of XV 300
, railroad crossing, viaduct VI 674
, switching service, whether inter or intrastate VI 70
, refund of excess switching charges on grain VII 459
to Almena, Amery and Dallas, refund on shipment of
salt VI 499
Localities Index 793
Vol. and Page
Superior to Augusta, rates on coal, reasonableness of II 593
to Baldwin, Eau Claire and other points in N. W. Wis.
on C. St. P. M. & Q. R., rates on coal, reasonableness of. ...I 767
from Bennett, rates on cordwood, reasonableness of.... 1 1 705
from Couderay, rates on lumber V 95
to Emerald, refund on shipment of coal '. VIII 683
, East End Station from Solon Springs, refund on
shiprrtents of lumber and establishment of lower rate V 721
, East End Yard to Itasca Station, Superior, refund on
shipment of crushed stone and establishment of general
switching charge V 449
, East End Yard to Itasca Station, Superior, refund on
shipment of crushed stone VI 219
from Milwaukee, refund on shipment of heating
apparatus XII 699
from Rice Lake, rates on shipment of excelsior,
reasonableness of and refund XIV 544
■ to Washburn, reasonableness of rates on slaked lime,
and refund XV 160
,, switching charges on grain V 598
— — , station facilities, adequacy of telephone service II 822
, grain elevator, construction of I 658
, grain elevators, discriminatory leasing of I 619
Suring, telephone utilities, physical connection IX 189
Sussex to Milwaukee, reasonableness of rates on skimmed
milk XV 532
from Rockfield, reasonableness of rates on lime XIII 38
from Waukesha, reasonableness of rates on lime XI 419
, telephone utility, extension of line XIV 131
Sycamore to Bagley Jet., reduction of rates and refund on
shipmen-t of piling XI 108
Sylvania, car service, adequacy of XI 634
T
Taycheedah, telephone utility, extension of line XIII ' 676
Taylor Rapids to Peshtigo, rates on cedar posts, reason-
ableness of, and refund XIV 188
Teddy to Milwaukee, refund on shijlment of tanbark ....XI 537
Theresa (4 miles south of), railroad crossing, protection of.X 493
, spur track ., XI 73
, telephone utilities, adequacy of service XV 582
, town of, telephone utility, extension of line XIV 402
Thiensville from La Crosse, rates on dried brewer's grains... .V 705
from Waukesha, reasonableness of rates on lime XI 419
Thompsonville, telephone rates IV 437
Thorp (Washington street), railroad crossing, protection of. ...XI 609
, station facilities, train service, and railroad crossing XI 153
Tigerton, telephone rates VII 426
, telephone rates XV 552
794 Localities Index
Vol. and Page
Tilden and Wheaton (between), Cameron crossing, (% mile
southeast of Howard Siding), railroad crossing, protec-
^ tionof XV 667
Tisch Mills, telephone rates XII 169
Tom ah from Lady smith and Weyerhauser, refund on
shipments and reduction of joint rates V 655
, station facilities IX 274
, telephone rates and ser\4ce II 296; VIII 399
Tomahawk from Goodman, refund on shipment of lumber... VI I 581
and Minocqua from Wausau, rates on shipments of
beer, reasonableness of, and refund " XIV 508
from Wausau, reasonableness of rates on beer XIII 527'
, telephone rates XIII 340
, water rates and service VIII 40
Town Road, between the towns of Watertown and Ixonia,
Jefferson county, interurban railway service XII 404
Trego, telephone rates XIV 499
Trempealeau to Janesville, refund on shipment of buck-
wheat : : XIV 771
Trevor from Manitowoc, refund on shipment of coal Ill 339
Tripoli, McCord and Brantwood to Rhinelander, reason-
ableness of rates on wood, and refund XV 171
Troy Center from La Crosse, rates on dried brewers' grains V 705
from Milwaukee, rates on coal, reasonableness of II 75
Truesdell from Waukesha, reasonableness of rates on lime. XI 419
Turtle Lake, train service, adequacy of I 512
Two Rivers and Manitowoc, interurban railway rates VI 395
from^Wis. points, refund on shipments of bolts and logs IV 355
u
Ulao from Rockfield, reasonableness of rates on lime XIII 38
from Waukesha, reasonableness of rates on lime XI 419
Underbill, telephone utilities, physical connection IX 189
Union Grove, sidetrack X 442
Unity to Colby, reasonableness of rates on logs, and refund. . . .XV 469
to Waukesha, refund on shipment of cordwood VIII 34
to Waukesha, refund on shipment of wood IX 165
, train service, adequacy of, railroad crossing, protection
of XIII 430-
V
Valley Jet., station facilities, adequacy of XV 670
Van Buskirk and Carson (between), to Superior, joint
rates on logs XIV 703
Vandyne (south), railroad crossing, protection of XI 733
to Milwaukee, through Fond du LaC, refund on
shipment of live stock VIII 532
Localities Index 795
Vol. and Page
Vaudreuil from Black River Falls, railroad construction,
certificate of public convenience and necessity VII 741
to Black River Falls, switch connections VI 661
Vaughn, town of, water rates and service XIV 291
Velasco to Merrill, refund on shipments of logs IV . 770
Velasco Jet. to Merrill, refund on shipment of logs XI 274
Verona and Middleton, telephone utilities, physical
connection XV 286
and Madison, train service between VIII 320
Vesper from Arbor Vitae, refund on shipment of lumber VI 21
to La Crosse, reasonableness of rates on silos, and
refund : XV 442
to Grand Rapids, refund on shipment of brick IX 163
Victory, station facilities XII 555
, train service XIV 506
Vinland, interurban rates and fare zones VIII 709
Viola, water mains, extension of XIII 702
Viroqua from Wis. points on the C. M. & St. P. R. and
L. C. & S. E. R., establishment of concentration rates
and refund on shipment of tobacco XI 439
from Athens, refund on shipment of lumber XI 447
, water rates XI 330
w
Wabeno to Wis. points on C. & N. W. R., group rates on
lumber, reasonableness of I 520
Waldo Station (about IH miles northwest), railroad
crossing, protection of XII 251
to Sheboygan, joint rates on barley established
between the C. M. & St. P. R. and the G. & N. W. R V 668
Wales from Waukesha, reasonableness of rates on lime XI 419
Walworth, electric rates V 171
, electric service XV 383
, telephone rates XV 412
Warrens (crossing 23^ miles west of), railroad crossing,
restoration of X 531
Washburn from Ashland, refund on shipments of wood bolts. .I,V 465
from Bayfield, rates on logs, reasonableness of and
refund .....XIV 289
from Beaver Spur, reasonableness of rates on bolts,
and refund XV 294
from Grandview, refund on shipment of wood bolts Ill 600
from Rickerd's Spur, refund on shipment of logs V 666
from Seeley, refund on shipments of bolts XII 192
from Superior, reasonableness of rates on slaked lime,
and refund XV 160
, water rates and installation of meters VI 74
Waterloo, telephone rates VI 187
796 Localities Index
Vol. and Page
Waterloo, water and electric rates, management XV 534
Watertown and Ixonia, town of (town road between), inter-
urban railway service. ...y XII 404
-, street lighting rates XIV 604
from Wis. points on La Farge branch of C. M. & St.
P. R., reduction of rates on lumber VIII 131'
from La Crosse, rates on dried brewers' grains V 705
from La Farge, refund on shipment of lumber VIII 131
fromMattoon Railway points, joint rates V 531
and Milwaukee, withdrawal of commutation rate be-
tween Ill 330
— to New London, refund on shipment of coke VIII 566
— , Sparta, Madison and Janesville from Wis. points on
the G. B. & W. R., joint rates on tobacco, reasonableness
of :.... : II 807
— , station facilities IV 136
— , town of, telephone utility, interference of high voltage
transmission lines XV 619
and Fond du Lac, train service between XII 74
, water rates XIV 669
Waukesha, interurban railway, service and station facilities,
adequacy of XIII 89
and Milwaukee, interurban rates X 306
, gas and electric rates XIJI 100
(2 miles northeast of), (Stone crossing), railroad cross-
ing, protection of XI 658
county, (crossing on North Lake branch line of G. M.
& St. P. R.), railroad crossing, protection of XV 203
from Wis. points on the G. & N. W. R. and other lines,
switching rates on slab wood, kiln wood and cordwood XIII 650
to Wis. points (designated) on G. & N. W. R., refund
on shipments of gravel and crushed stone XIII 368
to Wis. points on the G. M. & St. P. R. and the G. &
N. W. R., reduction of rates on crushed stone, gravel,
lime and sand IX 347
to , (designated) on the G. M. & St. P. R. and
the G. & N. W. R., reasonableness of rates on lime XI 419
to on the G. M. & St. P. R. and the G. & N. W.
R., reduction of rates on gravel, crushed stone and lime. ...IX 87
to on the M. St. P. & S. S. M. R. and other lines,
joint rates on agricultural limestone XIII 471
from on the M. St. P. & S. S. M. R., switching
rate on wood XIII 372
— , switching rates, reasonableness of, refund XIII 534
— to Black River Falls, rates on shipment of ground lime-
stone, reasonableness of and refund XIV 579
— to Durand, rates on shipment of ground limestone,
reasonableness of and refund XIV 18
Localities Index 797
Vol. and Page
Waukesha to Merrill, reasonableness of rates on slaked lime
and refund : XV 1C2
to Milwaukee, refund on shipment of beer VI 518
to , rates on beer, reasonableness of V 546
from , rates on shipments of bottles, reasonableness
of, and refund XIV 77
from , refund on shipment of scrap iron Ill 383
to , refund on shipment of stone IX . 167
from Rice Lake, refund on shipments of excelsior XIII 635
from Unity, refund on shipments of wood VIII 34; IX 165
Waunakee, (Main street), railroad crossing, protection of.... XI I 380
Waupaca, electric and street railway rates V 190
(VJis. Veterans' Home) and Farmington, carrying of
freight by electric railway XV 656
— , electric street lighting VIII 586; IX 310
— — , reasonableness of switching rates XI 485
— — and Scandinavia from Gravel Pit, reasonableness of
rates on sand and gravel ...XV 482
Waupun to Menomonie, refund on shipment of twine XIII 393
W^ausau, street railway rates.\ V 114
— — to Eau Claire Villa, street railway fare zones and rates
of fare Ill , 520
to W isconsin points on M. St. P. & S. S. M. R. (north
of Hurley and west of Abbottsford to the state line),
establishment of joint rates VII 41
from , concentration rates on lumber Ill 605
from , reasonableness of rates on lumber IV 256
from , refund on shipments of lumber IV 271
from , refund on shipments of lumber
IV, 323, 327, 335, 337, 405, 457, 459, 461, 463
from Bushwell, refund on shipment of logs VI 217
from Cotter, Doering, Heineman and Russian', refund
on shipment of logs IX 281
from Green Bay, group rates on coal VI 436
from Grimms, refund on shipment of lime IX 160
from Heafford Jet., refund on shipments of logs IV 362
to Horicon, refund on shipment of lumber VI 434
from Manitowoc, group rates on coal VI 436
-^ , Marshfield, and intermediate stations, to Bolton, Bear
Trap, and intermediate stations, reasonableness of rates
on hay, and refunds on shipments XII 433
from Milwaukee, group rates on coal VI 436
to Minocqua, reasdnableness of rates on lumber and re-
fund XV 521
to , reasonableness of rates on beer XIII 527
to New London, reasonableness of rates on lumber and
wooden boxes XI 1 1 772
— — to , refund on shipments of wooden boxes XIII 698
from Rhinelander, refund on shipments of lumber IV 768
798 Localities Index
Vol. and Page
Wausau from Rib Falls, refund on shipments of lumber IV 356
— — from Sheboygan, group rates on coal VI 436
to Tomahawk, reasonableness of rates on beer XIII 527
to — — and Minocqua, rates on shipment of beer,
reasonableness of, and refund XIV 508
to Winchester, refund on shipment of hay ....XIII 468
, telephone rates and service XI 480
Wausaukee to Fond du Lac and Berlin, refund on shipment ■
of wood XI 706
Wautoma (Mount Morris ave.), railroad crossing, protection
of IX 365
, telephone rates VI 419
Wauwatosa, interurban rates, reasonableness of XIII 475
and Milwaukee (between), street railway service, ade-
quacy of I 689
and , street railway fare limits, extension of single
fare limits X 337
, town of (Blue Mounds road), railroad crossing, sepa-
ration of grades VII 760
, , (Burleigh street), railroad crossing, protection
of..: VII 453
, , (Lisbon ave.), railroad crossing, protection of VII 625
, , (North ave.), railroad crossing, restoration of
highway VII 709; IX 262
, (North Town Line road), railroad crossing,
separation of grades IX 267
, (North Town Line road), railroad crossing,
protection of VII 455
, (Potter av.), railroad crossing, protection of VII 451
, (South Line road), railroad crossing, separation
of grades VII 737
, — — (Watertown road), railroad crossing, protection
of VII 621
, County Institutions near, and Milwaukee, switching
charges between Ill 377
from Milwaukee, refund on shipment of coal VI, 531; VIII, 477
Wauzeka {!% miles north of), railroad crossings, protec-
tion of X 426
Waverley Beach and Brighton Beach (between), near Lake
Winnebago, stopping of interurban cars XIV 811
Wayne, town of, Washington Co., railroad crossings pro-
tection of X 493
Webster from Ashland, refund on shipments of lumber XII 701
Wedges Creek gravel pit, "end of track," from Columbia or
Wedges Creek Jet., refund on shipment of construction
material IV 412
Wedges Creek Jet. or Columbia, to "end o\ track," at
Wedges Creek gravel pit, refund on shipment of con-
struction material IV 412; VI 173
Localities Index 799
Vol. and Page
Welcome, telephone rates XI 180
West Allis and Milwaukee (between), suburban rates,
reasonableness of XIII 475
and Calhoun (between), interurban rates, reason-
ableness of XIII 475
and Milwaukee, street railway, fare limits, extension
of single fare limits X 314
(National ave.), railroad crossing, separation of grades. ..VII 493
from Mayville, rates on shipment of fuel oil, reason-
ableness of, and refund XIV 577
from Waukesha, refund on shipment of gravel and
crushed stone XIII 368
(State Fair Park), train service, adequacy of XV 110
West Bend from Monroe, refund on shipment of scrap iron
and establishment of joint rates.... .........VIII 328
from Monroe, refund on shipment of scrap iron IV 268
from Rockfield, reasonableness of rates on lime XIII 38
from Waukesha, reasonableness of rates on lime XI 419
Westboro to Milwaukee, refund on shipments of tanbark,..XIII 378
Western boundary line of the state and Grantsburg, train
service between VIII 685
Western Siding from Shawano, refund on shipment of salt... VI 497
West Kewaunee, town of, telephone utility, extension of
lines XIV 219
West Milwaukee from Milwaukee, switching rates on
building material and refund on shipments XII I 673
Westport, town of, railroad crossing, alteration of IX 218
West Rosendale, stopping of certain limited passenger trains. Ill 602
West Salem, switch connection, public convenience and
necessity of track connections XV 254
, electric service, adequacy of XIII 637
W^eyauwega, station facilities and train service XII 54
Weyerhauser to Wis. points (southern Wis.), refund on
shipments of lumber and reduction of joint rates V 647, 655
to Beaver Dam, refund on shipments and reduction of
joint rates V 655
to Burlington, refund on shipments of lumber and
reduction of joint rates V 663
to Fairwater, Germantown, Racine, Schleisingerville,
and Tomah, refund on shipments and reduction of joint
rates V 655
to Wonewoc, refund on shipments of lumber and
reduction of joint rates V 647
Wheaton and Tilden (between), Cameron crossing {% mile
southeast of Howard siding,) railroad crossing, protec-
tion of XV 667
Whitehall, electric rates IX 479
from Rhinelander, refund on shipments of lumber V 729
Whitewater, electric rates XV 517
802 Localities Index
Vol. and Page
Wisconsin points on C. M. & St. P. R., to Janesville, refund
on shipnrient of grain X 377
(designated), on the C. M. & St. P. R. and C. & N. W.
R. from Waukesha, reasonableness of rates on lime XI 419
on La Farge branch of C. M. & St. P. R. to Oshkosh,
Fond du Lac, and Watertown, reduction of rates on
lumber VIII 131
(between), on C. M. & St. P. R., passenger rates.
reasonableness of ...I 324
— on C. M. & St. P. R. from Janesville, refund on ship-
ments of sand and gravel XIII 380
— on , reasonableness of rates on saw logs and bolts,
and refund XV 645
— on and other 'lines, establishment of joint rates on
tile and on brick and tile XIII 756
— on and L. C. '& S. E. R. to Viroqua, concen-
tration rates and refund on shipment of tobacco XI 439
— on the Mineral Point division of the C. M. & St. P. R.
and I. C. R. from Blanchardville, rates on wagons IX 509
— on the C. AI. & St. P. R. to Brokaw, refund on shipment
of wood ; XI 417
— on the C. St. P. M. & O. R. concentration rates estab-
lished VI 625
— on and M. St. P. & S. S. M. R., rates on con-
crete blocks : .....IX 82
— (between) on C. St. P. M. & 0. R., passenger rates,
reasonableness of I 510
— on G. St. P. M. & 0. R. to Ashland, concentration rates
on wood, reasonableness of I 16
— on the G. B. & W. R. to Sparta, Madison, Janesville,
Watertown, joint rates on tobacco, reasonableness of II 807
— on Marathon County R., carload rates for "jimmy"
cars II 64
— on and the C. &N. W. R., joint rates, division of ...XII 170
-on andthe C. &N. W. R., joint rates X 409
— on , reasonableness of rates VII 392
— on Mattoon R., rates on logs and bolts, reasonableness
of II 333
— on M. Pt. & N. R., rates on lead and zinc ore, reason-
ableness of I 99
— on M. St. P. & S. S. M. R. and other lines from
Waukesha, joint rates on agricultural limestone XIII 471
— on to Oshkosh and Menasha, reasonableness
of rates on bolts and refund XV 178
— on (north of Hurley and west of Abbottsford to
the state line), from Wausau, establishment of joint rates. VI I 41
— on to Burlington, refund on shipment of logs XI 492
— on to Menasha, refund on shipment of logs and
bolts XI 746
Localities Index 803
Vol. and Page
Wisconsin points (between) on M. St. P. & S. S. M. R. pas-
senger rates, reasonableness of I 510
on M. St. P. & S. S. M. R. to Waukesha, switching rate
on wood XIII 372
on to Nekoosa, Port Edwards, and Rhinelander,
reduction of rates, and refund on shipment of wood XI 393
on to Grand Rapids, Menasha, Neenah, Ne-
koosa, Port Edwards and Rhinelander, reduction of
rates on wood XI 393
from Milwaukee, appHcation of the Milwaukee and
Fox River Valley R. Co. for a certificate of public con-
venience and necessity V 466
on W. C. R., minimum weights on hay, reasonableness
of ..; I 91
on to Neenah-Menasha, rates on pulp wood,
reasonableness of I 234
on — — to Milwaukee, rates on tanbark, reasonable-
ness of and refund II 761
(northern Wis.) to Appleton, refund on shipments of
pulp wood VI 175
to Gazenovia, joint railroad rates VI 693
to Ghippewa Falls, Menomonee Falls, and Janesville,
rates on sugar beets and beet pulp, reasonableness of I 258
— ^ to Cudahy and Milwaukee, rates on live stock, reason-
ableness of I 778
to Edgerton, refund on shipments of cordwood IV 480
to Fond du Lac, minimum carload weights and refund
on shipment IX 228
to Grand Rapids, Port Edwards and Nekoosa, reduc-
tion of rates and refund on shipment of pulp w^ood IX 1 11
to Green Bay, refund on shipments of logs Ill 388
• to Hudson, and destined to Manitowoc and Milwaukee,
refund on shipments of grain..' IV 488
to Ironton, joint railroad rates VI 693
to Kiel, refund on shipments of logs Ill 597
(northern Wis.) to Kimberly, refund on shipments of
pulp wood VI 175
(southern and eastern) from La Crosse, rates on dried
brewers' grains V 705
from La Crosse, less than carload rates on petroleum
products VI . 326
(southern Wis.) from Ladysmith, refund on shipments
of lumber and reduction of joint rates V 647, 655
from Laona, refund on shipments of lumber VII 774
to and from Lavalle, joint railroad rates VI 693
to Madison, refund on shipments of butter and eggs Ill 337
to Manitowoc and Milwaukee, with stoppage in
transit at Hudson, refund on shipments of grain IV 488
to Marshfield, refund on shipment of logs VI 571
804 Localities Index
Vol. and Page
Wisconsin points from Mattoon, joint and local rates, dis-
crimination in car service V 531
to Menasha and Neenah, reduction of rates on pulp
wood IX . Ill
from Milwa«kee, articles constituting personal
baggage VIII 115
from , reduction of rates on boxes XI 101
(southwestern), to Milwaukee, rates on cheese,
reasonableness of I 143
to Milwaukee, rates on grain, reasonableness of I 124
^to , minimum carload weights on grain Ill 182
from , less than carload rates on petroleum
products VI 326
to , refund on shipments of tanbark Ill 181
from , refund on shipments of vehicles and
agricultural implements VII 17
to Osceola, refund on shipments of grain V 291
to , refund on shipments of rye and barley IV . 483
to Portage, concentration rates on butter and eggs Ill I
to Reedsburg, concentration rates on butter and eggs.. I II 32
to Reedsburg, refund on shipments of eggs Ill 335,338
to Rhinelander, reasonableness of rates on logs, and
refund XV 569
to , reduction of rates and refund on shipment of
pulp wood IX 111
■ to ,• reasonableness of rates VIII 105
to Rockfield, refund on shipments of wood Ill 590
to Two Rivers, refund on shipments of logs and bolts.. IV 355
to Wausau, concentration rates on lumber Ill 605
to , reasonableness of rates on lumber IV 256
to — — , refund on shipments of lumber
IV, 271, 323, 327, 335, 337, 405, 457, 459, 461, 463
(southern Wis.), from W^eyerhauser, refund on ship-
ments of lumber and reduction of joint rates V 647, 655
Wisconsin River Valley points, from Lake Michigan ports
in Wis., group rates on coal VI 436
Withee, electric rates XIII 704
, telephone utihties, physical connection XIV 419
Wonewoc from Ladysmith, refund on shipments of lumber
and reduction of joint rates V 647
from Weyerhauser, refund on shipments of lumber
'and reduction of joint rates V. 647
, telephone rates and service VIII 399
Wood County, telephone utilities, physical connection XV 244
Woodland from Spring Valley, refund on shipment of lumber XII 131
Woodville and Spring Valley (between), train service,
adequacy of XIV 775
\
Localities Index 805
Vol. and Page
Wyocena, town of, certificate of public convenience and ^
necessity XI 552
and Portage (sand and gravel bed between), spur track.. VI 556
, telephone rates and service VIII • 92
, telephone rates XI 499
, train service, adequacy of ...I 532
Y
Yolo, railroad crossing, protection of... X 528
^■^*; ' ■*
VC 352%"
■,';.■;;
1 1 .