motion was issued and served on the above named companies. A number of hearings were held on the matter, the last of which being held at the office of this Commission on June 11, 1907, and an July 31, 1907, a decision and order in the said matter was made by the Commission which is not included in this report but will be found in the report of this Commission for the year ending June 30, 1908. No. 110. SUPERIOR BOARD OF TRADE VS. GREAT NORTHERN RY. CO. The petitioner is an organization having for its object the promoting and facilitating of commerce at Superior. On December 28, 1906, it, through its secretary, filed a complaint with the Commission alleging that the respondent, the Great Northern Railway Co., used its elevator in the city of Superior in an improper, unlawful and discriminating manner; that it charged an unreasonable rate for switching grain from its terminals in Superior to and over the line of the Lake Superior Terminal and Transfer Co. Hearings were had at Superior on April 17, 1907, and at Madison on May 8, 1907. At these hearings it developed that the Eastern Railway Company of Minnesota owned three large grain elevators in the City of Superior and said company was made a party respondent to this action. The decision of the Commission was rendered subsequent to June 30, 1907, and will be found in Volume I of the Decisions of the Commission. No. 111. SUPERIOR BOARD OF TRADE VS. NORTHERN PACIFIC RY. CO. The The petitioner in this case is the same as in No. 110. complaint was filed and hearings held on the same dates as No. 110. The complaint alleged inadequacy of service of the respondent in that it failed to erect and maintain a grain ele vator at Superior for the purpose of receiving and storing grain. In other respects the complaint was substantially like that filed in No. 110. The decision of the Commission was rendered subsequent to June 30, 1907, and will be found in Volume I of the Decisions of the Commission. No. 112. SUPERIOR BOARD OF TRADE VS. LAKE SUPERIOR TERMINAL & TRANSFER CO. The petitioner in this case is the same and the complaint was filed on the same date as No. 110. The complaint alleged that the respondent discriminated against grain products in that it collected a switching charge for switching same, where · as it made no switching charge for switching other merchandise. The complaint was withdrawn on January 13, 1907. No. 113. SUPERIOR BOARD OF TRADE VS. CHICAGO, ST. PAUL, MINNEAPOLIS & OMAHA RY. CO. The petitioner in this case is the same as in No. 110. The complaint was filed and hearings held on the same dates as No. 110. The complaint alleged discrimination on the part of the respondent in that it permitted its elevator property at Itasca, near Superior, to be used for the exclusive use and benefit of one shipper to the exclusion of all others. In other respects the complaint was similar to that filed in case No. 110. The decision of the Commission was rendered subsequent to June 30, 1907, and will be found in Volume I of the Decisions of the Commission. JOHN E. HUMPHREY VS. No. 114. CHICAGO, MILWAUKEE & ST. PAUL RY. CO. The petitioner, a resident of Ixonia, filed a complaint with the Commission on January 9, 1907, alleging that the passenger train service at the station of Ixonia is unreasonable, inadequate and discriminating. The parties interested held a conference at the office of the Commission at which a stipulation was entered into satisfactory to the petitioner. E. MARLOW & SON VS. No. 115. CHICAGO, MILWAUKEE & ST. PAUL RY. CO. The petitioners conduct a retail lumber yard at Ixonia and on January 9, 1907, filed a complaint alleging that the rates on lumber between Watertown and Ixonia are unjust, unreasonable and discriminatory. The complaint really involved the rates between Rosholt and Watertown via C. & N. W. Ry. as well as between Watertown and Ixonia. The case was settled by the respondent and the C. & N. W. Ry. Co., putting in effect a joint rate on lumber between Rosholt and Ixonia. No. 116. FOND DU LAC TABLE CO. VS. WISCONSIN CENTRAL RY. CO. The petitioner is engaged in the manufacture of tables at Fond du Lac, and on January 10, 1907, filed with the Commission a complaint alleging that the switching charge of two dollars per car, charged by the respondent at Fond du Lac on shipments originating at non-competitive points, is unreasonable and discriminatory for the reason that such charge is not made on shipments originating at competitive points or to industries located on the line of the respondent. The complaint was settled by the respondent putting in effect an order providing that the respondent would absorb all switching charges from all points where, after such absorption, the line earnings will not be less than $15.00 per car. No. 117. In re Informal Complaint of R. F. HODGES VS. WISCONSIN CENTRAL RAILWAY CO. Informal complaint filed December 5, 1906. Right of carrier to refund portion of charge made for transporting a car of lumber from Butternut, Wis., to Rockford, Ill. The Wisconsin Central Railway Co. publishes joint tariffs with the C. & N. W. and C., M. & St. P. Ry. Cos., making a rate of 12 cents per 100 lbs. on lumber from Butternut to Rockford. Without shipping directions from the consignor, it routed a car of lumber to Rockford via the C., B. & Q. Ry. Co., with which company it made no joint rates, the sum of the locals being 17 cents per 100 lbs. On a claim for a refund of 5 cents per 100 lbs. by the shipper, Held, That 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. Ry. Co. published joint rates of 12 cents per 100 lbs. with two other carriers, in the absence of instructions 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 rate. No. 118. J. M. BUSHNELL VS. CHICAGO, MILWAUKEE & ST. PAUL RY. CO. Petition to compel the respondent carrier to stop an interstate limited train at a village with a population of about 450, in addition to the two trains in each direction daily, except Sundays, which are now stopped at said village. On Sundays one train is stopped in each direction. Held, That the present train service at said village of two trains in each direction daily, except Sundays, is "reasonably adequate service" within the meaning of section 3, of chapter 362, Laws of Wisconsin of 1905, being the Railroad Commission Law, and that therefore the complaint be dismissed. No. 119. F. A. LAPHAM VS. WISCONSIN CENTRAL RY. CO. The petitioner, a farmer residing near Honey Creek, filed a complaint on January 15, 1907, alleging insufficient passenger |