, 1874-11-09
RAILROAD NEWS.
The Question Of Roads Crossing at
Grade.
Judge Drummond's Opinion in The Chi
cago & Pacific Case.
THE QUESTION OF RAILROAD CROSS
ING8.

TIE NORTHWESTERN AND CHICAGO PACIFIC
Some very important principles woro enl1n~
ciated BY Judge nrummond, Saturday, hftes
hea.ing tho argument OIL tho motion OF tho Clif~
cago l. Northwestern Railway Company III M's~
consn for MI injunction to provont the crossing
Of It's llne at grade by tho Chicago d. faclilo
Railroad, about miles weat OF Elgin' Iho Dall
filed by tho complainant, corporation oi tho
State Of WiaconBtn. rcclted TINT at tto proposed
noint Of crosang lilo grade on tho Chicago d
Northwestern Railway was n foot to tho milo.
which grads was Increased by tho limo thoro
taking sl,Arp c,lrye to thu north through
docp cut about 1000 feet In lcngth, TINT would
completely shut out from view trims approach
ing from the woat OIL eitlor limo. woro the cross-
Ing mado at TINT point. These statements
wero eustn1noi by afldayita Of civil and loco
motive ongincors familiar with tho line and To-
cation. It mas also shown that wcre tho pro-
posed crossing nalo, and MI trains required to
stop OIL that grade. locomotive engines could
not start and curry over tho grado as hoavy
trains by at loast nyo loaded cars as they now
car; aud TINT, in certain conditions Of tho
track, 1t would 10 impossible for tho engineers
to stop their heavi1y-londed trims coming down
tho grade from 200 foot to 300 fcot "a required
by law, thereby mourning iulninent danger Of
collisions.
AN AGREEMENT WAS BET Ur
alleged to 1nvo boun made botwoan Thomas s.
Dobbins. President OF tho Chicago l. Pacific
Rond, and Il. II. Porter, General Manager Of
tho Northwestern Halfway. to tllo effect
that the Chief Engineors Of both Comps
MICS bo directed to Wow the ground and ascorta1n
il a better rolito for tho crossing could not be
made. Tho engineers did 80 survey another
}tnir. nj nrfncr n mint E31
foot west Of tho proposed crossing AZ the bost
point for crossing over the Northwestern nail-
way. was also rccited IN tho bill aud proofs.
This argument tho defendants explicitly de-
pted, They admitted that q conference had
been hold, and auch suggestions made, and tho
engineers instructed to Wow the ground, but de-
MED any agroomont about tho report furthDr
than tIlnt 1t should be considered whom mude.
The caHo engaged the attention OF tho Court
nearly tho entiro day. Tho Hon. B. O. Cook,
General Solicitor for tic Chicago l. Northwest
ern Railway oppned tho case Tor that Company.
Mr. Aver followed in iongthy defense OH bo-
huf Of the Elgin road, combining himself malu-
!ytoa
Of the Court IIo claimed that, as the Chicago
l. Northwestern Hallway Company sYas citizen
of Illinois tho same as tho Chicago j. Pacific
load, tho proceeding should have been instituted
Ia q State Court and that tho Chicago Il North
western nsilwny Company, Of WISCONSIN, and
The Chicago L Northwestern I}ailway Company,
Of Illinois, were ono consolidated, iusoparab)e
corporation.
upon which tho bill proceeds IL this-and. II
mainsinabo ut all it IL upon that theory: that
hero arc three legal entities, citizens of tho
Unitod States within tho nleanlug Of tho judi
cAtory act t-one in illinois, ono in Wisconsin,
themselves that they will prosecute n common
purpose or business within the three statcs
ind they obtain = with the yioV Of carrying
out that object-!eglslation. from the three
States, by virtuo OF which they are enabled to
prosecute thoir busineHs,-in other words, tho
Completion, conAtruction, and running OF a rail-
road. Now, when that il done, can ono OF these
peraons bring suit in tho Federal Court be-
cause an injury is done to the common purpose
or object? Tint IL all.
Col. j. s. Wilcox, Of Elgiu, closed tho case on
behalf Of tho Chicago Il Iaci6c Company. He
pleaded earnestly againHt tho motion because 1t
waB vital question to tho weak aud struggling
Company he represented. He insisted upon
thor legal right to cross in the way they saw it,
providing they could not como to IN agsoomont
with tho Northwestern Company.
Judge DruMmond--four ideN is that tho Qres-
ton M to how you shall cross depends upon
Four own gieWe?
Col. Wilcox-Not 80. I say, 80 that wo do not
abuse tho authority conferred upon us.
Judge Drummond-Wcll,
THAT is RATHER VAGUE.
II railroad tlnt IL being built i8 about to crosB
another, it j. very Important question "leshor
las tho right to determine for itself i'll what
manner it stlal! cross II you sny it iB matter
10 be determined by tho joint efforts OF both or
what mny bo sald to 10 conducive to the inter
estH of both, then TINT il another question If,
OIL the other band it III to bo determined by tho
interests Of tho plhlic that il another question.
There arc three yiows you may ta!o Of it, and
shey aro nll proty Important questions.
Col Wilcox--Mv opinion ia shat it is to bo do
tormiueti by tho conlpAea for themselves if they
cAn ngrco. II not, then VIC must examine tile
lava Of tho State, md exercise tho power tAoro
conferred, 30 wo do not nbusc It.
Judge DrnlnmoIld-We!l would ngreo to
that provided you would conllne it III this way
10 you do not abAo or injure other the rights of
the public or tho rights Of the railway you aro
ehout 10 croBs. Defining it III that way, agree
with YOU.
Dir. Aycr--As undarstand It, railway cor~
poratlun, acquiring the right Of way from tho
state, docs not acquire tho exclusive right Of
TAy.
Judge Drummond-I understand nil that.
Mr. Ayer gaid tho Stato had pointed out tho
mode in which COMPENSATION for crossings may
10 aacertained. Tho question waB, can any
curt annex conditions to the right Of crossing,
which are not found IN tho statute law OF tile
6tato?
Judge Drnmmorad-I do not understand TINT
the Legislature Of this State has over prescribed
old railroad ut grade when it can croas IN any
other way.
Mr. Ayer-Thoy hayo nayor said tho contrary.
Judge Drun,moul-That may 10. Tho luos-
tim il,
WHETHER THE COURTS HAVE NOT SOME CONTROL
over this matter within tho language OF tho
Legislature, That IL tho only question. Nov,
IN case baforo mo the othor day as to rail-
road,crosslng hotwecn the Michigan Central and
tho PlttAburB L Baltimore NailroaA, would not
agreo to en1oin because thought it might
prerent the completion Of tho road within tia
tlno " was desirable the roAd should ha tiuished
but, while refused to grant tho Injunction. [
stated expressly tllat would not admit that 4
court Of chaneery bad no control oYor tho subject
matter within tho proper meaning OF Tho Inn
gnage usod by tho Legislature Ut Iudiaua. I
was not prepared 70 say that the legislation was
80 clear and distinct that, 1,ndor ali cronn,.
stances, new road, in crossing an old ono, u.,,nt
CROSS ut grade. / reserved the powor to issuo
the injunction at ary time. l shall make mn or
der directing survey to be made for tho MR.
roso Of aaceftninng whether or not there cau
BE- mado. consistently with tho geography Of
tho country, crossing Of one road over tlo other
ss tie eaao may be. l think wo cannot alvays
lay down inAoxbe rules on this question. I am not
prepared to say that tho Legislature has no right
}o i ,1>n n1 ~