The Emporia news. [volume] (Emporia, Kan.) 1859-1881, 1871-03-10
RAILROAD MATTERS.


Speech Of Jacob StOtIer, in the Stat
!, Senate, Feb. %, 1871.
The committee of the whole Senat
having under consideration House bill
Ill, Gan act in relation to the Missouri
Kansas and Texas railway company,
Mr.. Stotler said:
Mr.. CHAIRMAN
! 1t seems to devolve upon me 10 at leas
call the attention of Senators to the pro
visions of the measure now under cen
sideration. can say truthfully that
wish some gentleman better able to per
form the task had undertaken it. But
cannot remain silent and allow it Il
pass without word of opposition.
This bill is one containing such extra
ordinary provisions that l cannot, al
though a firm friend of railroads, sup
port it. l have been especially a friend
of the road seeking the passage of THU
act. 1t traverses the Neosho Valley
that portion of the State in whose de
velopment / feel special interest
where have resided for fourteen years
and where all my interests lie. If there
is one section of the State dearer to me-
than all others, it is the country which
is tEaversed and developed by the maiI
line of this road, and there is nothing
could do, which would be fair and hon.
/ orable, that 1 would not do to further its
/ Interests.
| have looked at this bill carefully.
have compared it with the constitution
and existing laws, and have consulted
| some of the best lawyers of the State az
to its leading provisions, and i am now
prepared to give some of the reasons,
briefly, why 1 oppose it.
This is an act in relation to the Mis-
souri,, Kansas q Texas Railway, late the
Union Pacific, Southern Branch, and
the objections to it are manifold and
multiform. They may be viewed in
two aspects First, as to its being in
conflict with section one ofarticle twelve
of the Constitution of the State of Kan
sas, and therefore being unconstitution-
al and void ; Sesond, admitting the bill,
if passed, to be a valid enactment, then as
to the tenor, scope and effect of its pro-
visions. Let us consider the constitu-
tional point of the bill. Section one of
article twelve of the Constitution is as
follows:
"The Legislature shall pass no special act
may be created under general laws, but all
such laws may be amended or repealed"
That the bill under consideration is
special act there can be no doubt. The
only remaining question in order to de-
termine its constitutionality is, is the
bill one "conferripg corporate powers )"
because, if il is such an one, being a
special act, it is in conflict with the
clause of the constitution just read, and
is therefore void. 1t is either such an
act or it is nothing. If it does not con-
fer corporate powers why is the railroad
company clamoring for its passage. So
anxious are they that it should pass
that their general manager and his en-
ployees have spent days here to engi-
neer it through the House.
The first fifteen lines of the first sec
ton of the bill, as originally intro
duced, purports to contain, by way of
recitals, certain rights, privileges and
franchises that the company has acquir-
ed under and by virtue of, and in accor-
dance with the laws of this State, and
in accordance with law, without stating
what law of what state. They also
purport to contain franchises and privi-
leges under and by virtue of acts of Con-
gress through the Indian Territory and
certain franchises under acts of the Leg
islature of the State of Texas. We are
therefore asked in the next four lines of
the same section, to enact that the COM
pany shall have the same rights over
its whole line that it now enjoys over
any part or portion of the same, "inclu-
ding the right to increase its capital
stock :" that is, that the company shall
have the same rights over that portion
OF its line that is situated in the State of
Kansas, that it has over that portion of
its line that is situated in the State
of Missouri, as granted to it by the
Legislature of that State; that it shall
have the same rigts over that por-
ton of its line situated in the state of
Kansas, that it has over that portion
situated in the Indian Territory, as
granted by acts of Congress; that it
shall have the same rights over that
portion of its line situated in the State
of Kansas that it has over that portion
that is, or will be located in the State of
Texas, ''including the right to increase
its capital stock" as may have been pro-
vided by the State of Missouri, by an
act of Congress, or by the State of Tex
as. The last four lines of section one of
this bill mean just that if they mean
anything, and it is but fair to presume
that the company knew what it was
about when it had this bill drafted and
introduced. Do not these provisions
confer corporate powers on the COM
pany by special act? l submit that
they do, and not only singly but in
grossly wholesale.
am glad to be informed that the
committee to whom this bill was refer
red considers it important to propose
an ameddment in the eighteenth line
by inserting the words "within the State
of Kansas" after the word thereof"
But this amendment makes no difference
with my opposition to the measure.
There are other and worse provisions
in it.
The second section, in substance, pro-
vides that the company may have its
place of business outside of the limits
of the State, and may hold its meetings
and elections of stockholders and di-
rectors outside of the State, and in
short, perform all its corporate business
outside of the limits of the sovereignty
that created 1.-THE State of Kansas. It
is, as l am informed by some of the
most eminent lawyers in the State, a
fundamental principle of the law in re-
Iation to corporations, that they must
dwell and have their place of business
in the place of their creation, and it was
SO decided, believe, by our Supreme
Court, last summer, in the case of the
Land Grant, Railway and Trust Com
pans, against the Board of county COM
missioners of Coffee county. 1 have
searched in vain through the act of 1866
in relation to corporations, under which
this company was incorporated, and
through the act of 1868, in relation to
the subject, to find any statutory varia-
ton of the principle of the law of cor
porations which have just stated.
cannot find in any act of the Legisla-
ture of the State of Kansas, either gen.
eral or special, any provision authori-
zing the Missouri, Kansas Sc Texas Rail-
way, or the Union Pacific Railway,
Southern Branch, to hold their meet
ings for the election of Directors, or for
any other purpose, outside of the limits
of the State of Kansas. 1t seems to me
conclusive, as an argument, that the
company did not and do not possess
this power under or by virtue of any
provision of the law now in existence.
If they do why ask us to confer the
power upon them by this special act ?
1 cannot find the chapter, section and
page where this right is given by any
statutory provision, and it is plain to
nae that it does not exist Independent of
statute. I challenge the supporters of
this monstrous bill-learned attorneys
though they be-to point to the pro-
vision in the laws of the State of Kan
sas where authority is given to this
company to hold their meetings and
transact their corporate business outside
of the limits of the State of Kansas.
They cannot There are no such pro-