line, and inasmuch as one dollar is charged in this case, it is a very strong corroborative fact that there was an understanding between the defendant and the subscribers on this line that additional service was to be rendered other than the mere switching to the lines at Union City.

It appears that the poles between Union City and Mustang upon which the long distance lines are attached are jointly owned by the Union City Telephone Company and Mustang Telephone Company. It also appears that there are two lines upon these poles, one of which belongs to the defendant, the Union City Telephone Company, and the other to the Mustang Telephone Company. It further appears that the service at one time rendered the subscribers of the rural line of which the complainant is one, was discontinued on account of some misunderstanding between the Mustang Telephone Company and the Union City Telephone Company as to the maintenance of the lines or interest upon the investment, which the Union City Telephone Company claimed the Mustang Telephone Company should bear its proportional part, and because of the failure to satisfactorily adjust this misunderstanding between these two companies, this service was discontinued.

As to how this line should be maintained between Mustang and Union City, or between these two companies, is not now before the Commission and the Commission does not express any opinion in reference thereto, but this matter can have due consideration by the Commission should a complaint be filed at any time involving that question.

The Commission further finds that one dollar per month, being fifty cents more than is usualy charged rural telephone subscribers, is a reasonable and fair compensation for the service which the defendant agreed at one time to render and which the Commission finds it is the duty of the defendant to render the complainant and other subscribers of this rural line.

It is, therefore, ordered that the defendant, the Unton City Telephone Company, give to the subscribers of the rural line connected with the switchboard at Union City of which the complainant. is one, free service through its exchange at Union City to Mustang. That this service shal be rendered on and after the fifteen day of September, 1909.

Guthrie, Oklahoma, August 31, 1909.

COMPLAINT NO. 399.

L. M. NICHOLS, Secretary, Bristow,

VS.

ST. LOUIS & SAN FRANCISCO RAILROAD COMPANY.

Filed April 20, 1909.

Asking for a telephone in the station.

May 4, 1909, dismissed at request of complainant.

COMPLAINT NO. 400.

J. W. PARRISH, ET AL., Mounds,

VS.

ST. LOUIS & SAN FRANCISCO RAILROAD COMPANY.

Filed April 20, 1909.

Asking for better drainage.

June 14, 1909, dismissed at request of complainant.

COMPLAINT NO. 401.

EDMOND GAS CO., Edmond,

VS.

OKLAHOMA NATURAL GAS COMPANY.

Filed April 24, 1909.

Asking that they be furnished with gas.

August 30, 1909, order was issued and is as follows:

CORPORATION COMMISSION OF OKLAHOMA.

ORDER NO. 226.

EDMOND GAS COMPANY, Complainant,

VS.

OKLAHOMA NATURAL GAS COMPANY, Defendant.
Appearances:

For Complainant: C. V. Eggleston.

For Defendant: Flynn & Ames, Attorneys.

OPINION OF THE COMMISSION.

By Love, Chairman:

The complaint alleges, in substance, that the complainant is a gas company and has a franchise to operate its business in the streets of the city of Edmond, and that the defendant, the Oklahoma Natural Gas Company, is a corporation and engaged in the piping of natural gas from the natural gas fields in Tulsa, Oklahoma, and has a pipe iine extending to Edmond; and asked that the defendant be required to supply the complainant with natural gas upon the same terms and conditions that it supplies other gas companies for the purpose of distributing to consumers in the town of Edmond.

The defendant admits that it is engaged in the piping of natural gas from the gas fields in Oklahoma to the town of Edmond; that in supplying gas, the defendant makes a distributing contract with some local company in each place, by the terms of which, its gas is supplied to the inhabitants; that the local company performs the service of supplying the local consumers with gas; that this service is performed at Edmond by the Ramona Light, Heat & Power Com

pany as the agent of the defendant, and that the defendant, through the Ramona Light, Heat & Power Company, as its agent, is realy at all times to sell gas to the said complainant on the same terms and conditions that gas is sold and delivered to all other inhabitants and industries of the City of Edmond.

The Commission finds from the evidence in this case, that prior to the laying of pipe for natural gas to Edmond by the defendant, that the town was supplied by artificial gas by the Edmond Gas Company; that the Ramona Light, Heat & Power Company organized at the time the defendant reached Edmond with its natural gas pipe line, and bought all the physical property of the Edmond Gas Company, and immediately installed additional facilities for the piping of natural gas through the streets and to the consumers at Edmond, but after these arrangements had been made, there was nothing left of the Edmond Gas Company but a charter and some few joints of pipe. This charter was afterward purchased by some parties living at Oklahoma City and this complaint was filed to require the defendant to enter into a contract to supply it with natural gas for the purpose of distributing to the consumers at Fdmond, as is now done by the Ramona Light, Heat & 'Power Company.

The Commission further finds from the evidence that the town of Edmond has only about three thousand people, and from a business standpoint the Commission does not understand how two natural gas companies can lay pipes and compete for the business in a town the size of Edmond; that to require the defendant to furnish gas to this. company for distribution could, in the judgment of the Commission, under the circumstances in this case, serve no good purpose.

As shown by the evidence in this case, the complainant has no facilities at this time for supplying natural gas to the inhabitants, and it seems that from all the evidence in the case, the conclusion is irresistible that an order is sought solely for speculative purposes; that the complainant has no intention of furnishing the citizens of Edmond with natural gas. If the complainant had facilities in the town of Edmond and was in the business of supplying to the people of Edmond gas for local consumption, and the defendant, through itself or a subsidiary company had come into the town of Edmond, secured a franchise and established facilities for the same purpose, the Commission would require it to furnish the complainant, the Edmond Gas Company, with gas upon the same terms and conditions as it does other companies. But viewing this case as the Commission does, that the complaint was filed for speculative purposes and that the complainant has no facilities for the supplying of gas, the Commission cannot see any good purpose that can be served by granting the relief prayed for by the complainant, and certainly no benefits could accrue to the citizens of Edmond by ordering gas sold to a company without distributing facilities.

The complaint is, therefore, dismissed.

Guthrie, Oklahoma, August 30, 1909.

COMPLAINT NO. 402.

INCORPORATED TOWN OF VIAN.

VS.

K. & A. V. BRANCH OF MISSOUURI PACIFIC RY. CO.

Filed April 26, 1909.

Construct and maintain crossings in Vian.

December 9, 1909, order was issued and is as follows:
CORPORATION COMMISSION OF OKLAHOMA.

ORDER NO. 269.

COMPLAINT NO. 402.

INCORPORATED TOWN OF VIAN, Complainant.

VS.

MISSOURI PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY, Defendant.

OPINION AND ORDER OF THE COMMISSION.

By McAlester, Commissioner.

Complaint was filed against the Missouri Pacific Railway Company by the Incorporated Town of Vian on relation of A. D. Booher, City Clerk, asking for an order requiring the defendant railway company to establish and maintain crossings on three additional streets in said town of Vian, viz.: On McConnel, Cherokee and Rogers, and removing crossing from the present location in the middle of block between Blackstone and Cherokee streets to the point where Blackstone street crosses the right-of-way and tracks of said railway

company.

The matter came up for final hearing before the Commission on the 13th day of May, 1909.

The Commission finds, from the evidence adduced on the hearing of this case that the town of Vian is located on the line of the Missouri Pacific Railway Company, is a town of from eight hundred (800) to one thousand (1,000) inhabitants and has over the track and right-of-way of the defendant, the Missouri Pacific Railway Company, two street crossings, one of which is located in the middle of a block and on account of such location is inaccessible to the use of the public.

The Commission finds that the depot of defendant is located about. midway between Thornton and Blackstone streets; that a crossing is maintained on Thornton street, east of the depot, and a second crossing midway between Blackstone street and Cherokee street, west of the depot, that owing to the location of the last named crossings it is inaccessible to the use of the public, not being on any street and not convenient to ingress and egress from any street of the town.

The Commission finds further that it is only a distance of about 300 feet from the crossing of Thornton street to the crossing prayed for by complainants on Blackstone street; that defendant's depot is

located between said streets, and that from the present crossing on Thornton street to that midway between Blackstone and Cherokee streets is in the neighborhood of 540 feet.

The evidence further shows that the average length of passenger trains is about 600 feet and that the distance between the two crossings, even as they are now located is not sufficient to allow standing room on the track adjacent to the depot for some passenger trains and that they sometimes, awaiting orders, may have to be cut on either the crossing between Blackstone and Cherokee or on Thornton street and that to require the establishment and maintenance i the crossing on Blackstone street would put an unnecessary burden on the defendant railway company, for, in the judgment of the Commission, there should be at least two blocks adjacent to the depot in every town, which a railway company might use for stopping its trains, without having to cut them for street crossings.

The Commission is of the opinion, from the evidence that the present crossing, between Blackstone and Cherokee streets should be removed to Cherokee street and that the citizns of Vian and community are entitled to at least four crossings, and that the railway company should maintain its present crossing at Thornton street; one at McConnel street; one at Cherokee street and one at Rogers street, giving them, altogether, four crossings over the tracks and right-of-way of the defendant railway company.

It is, therefore, ordered by the Corporation Commission, that the defendant, the Missouri Pacific Railway Company, abolish its crossing midway between Blackstone and Cherokee streets and establish crossings, in addition to the one now located on Thornton street, at McConnel street, Cherokee street and Rogers street. That same shall be completed and ready for use on or before the first day of January, 1910, and thereafter shall be maintained until further orders of this Commission.

Guthrie, Oklahoma, Dec. 9, 1909.