Daily globe. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1878-1884, 1880-12-16

head---A Trip Over the North Wiscon-
sin---General Railroad Notes.
The first section of the galvanized iron
oornice upon the Union depot building
was put in place yesterday.
Bricklaying was in progress yesterday
upon the Union depot building; the Chi
cago, St. Paul s. Omaha buildings; and
other unfinished structures.
W. C. Andrus, general Eastern pas
senger agent of the Northern Pacific rail-
road, 2S5 Broadway, New York city, is
paving a brief visit to the headquarters
of the company at ST Paul 1t may be
said of Mr. Andrus that he is believed to
be the best talking man of the whole
Northern Pacific outfit-hence his loca-
ton in New York city.
The Northern Pacific company have
sent several car loads of the Ignite coal,
found in such abundance along the Mis-
souri, division of its road, to the Baldwin
locomotive works at Paterson, n. j., to
be tested for use in an improved fire-boX
for locomotive engines. Preliminary
tests lead to the belief on the part of the
officials of the road, that these practical
and scientific tests will demonstrate that
this coal is well adapted to locomotive
uses, as it has already been demonstrated
by practical uses that it is for stationary
engines, ETC. The result of the test by
the Baldwin locomotive works will be
watched with interest in this section, as
the decision reached will have an i'm
portant bearing upon the question of fuel
supply for the future in the prairie
regions.
uocrl.ead Crossing Injunction Dissotred.
In the United States circuit court yes
terday morning Judge McCrary read his
opinion and decision on the motion to dis
sclve the injunction which has restrain
ed the St Paul s. Manitoba Railway
company from building its Barnesville s
Moorhead branch across the Northern
Pacific right of way track near the village
cf Moorhead The decision is, in full as
follows:
December Term, 1851
Noit thern Pacific Railroad company We the
s.. Paul, Minneapolis & Moorhead Railway
q tnnpany The Barnesville 6 Manitoba rail
roaa company ct al.
Gilman & Clough for complainant; Bige-
low, Flandrau & Clark and r. B. Galusha for
respondents. McCrary, circuit judge.
The complainant owns and has for some
years operated line of railroad running across
the State of Minnesota, constructed by virtue
of authority conferred by certain acts of Con
gresS in the bill mentioned. The respondents
are the owners of another line of railroad now
i'll process of construction under authority
conferred by the State of Minnesota as alleged
ia the answer Each of these companies have
power to acquire by purchase or condemnation
the land required for right of way, depot
grounds, etc. The lines of the two railroads
cross each other at point near Fargo in this
State-the exact point of crossing being on
the northwest quarter Of section 8, township
l39, range S, in the county of Clay, Minnesota.
In 1872 the plaintiff company entered upon
this land, and took without condemnation, SO
much of the same as is now occupied by it for
right of way, and has ever since operated its
railroad across the same. At the time of the
passage of the act of Congress incorporating
the complainant company, the land in question
was public lands, but at the time of the
definite location of the line of the road under
that act, said land was owned by one J. 8.
Schriber, who, in the meantime, had obtained
a patent therefor, and from whom, through
several mesne conveyances, the title had passed
to the respondents. No proceedings under the
statutes of Minnesota to recover damages for
the right of way were ever instituted by said
Schriber or any of his grantees against the
complainant The respondents claim under
these circumstances that they are the owners of
the land and have the right to construct their
railroad across it, and III doing so to cross the
track of complainant without making com
pensation The complainant claims that it has
a vested right and valuable property in the
right Of way which cannot be taken by the re-
spondents without condemnation under the
statute and payment Of damages. Numerous
questions arising upon the admitted facts have
been discussed by counsel, the more important
of which are the following:
First-Whether under the charter of the
complainant company (act of Congress of July
9, 1864 that company acquired the right of
way over all the lands that were public at the
time of It's passage, or only over such as were
public at the time of the location Of the line?
6econd-Whether the respondents, or those
under whom they claim had complete title to
the locus in quo at the time the complainant
entered upon the same? And
Third-H SO, whether by permitting the
complainant to take the right of way and use
the same for eight years, the respondents and
their grantors lost their rights therein and the
complainant acquired vested right.
Fourth-Whether the respondents right 10
claim so much of the land as is embraced with
in complainant's right Of way is barred by
sec. of the aforesaid act of Congress.
Besides these questions which arise upon the
admitted facts, there is another which depends
Tor It's decision upon laclS WHICH are cOnurO-
verted 1t is alleged in the answer that the
plaintiff well knew that the enterprise in which
respondents had embarked, "involved the cross
ing of plaintiffs road at or near the point of
crossing aforesaid and that the place and man-
ner of said crossing as aforesaid were fully
explained to the plaintiff and that the plaintiff
expressly assented to and approved the place
and manner of crossing as aforesaid and rep
resented to the defendants and gave them to
understand that they could and should be per-
mitted to build and operate the said Barnes
vile & Moorhead railroad across the said
plaintiffs road at the place aforesaid when
ever and as soon as they desired SO to do, and
that they would assist in effecting such cross
inr, and that no obstacle would
be interposed thereto, and that
after such representations and license and in
firm reliance upon the same, and without and
before any notice or knowledge that the said
representations would not be carried out in
good faith, or Of any design on the part of the
plaintiff to interpose any obstacles whatever
TO such crossing or to attempt so to do, the
said defendant companies went OH and expended
large sums of money in the construction OF
said road, ,to-wit: several hundred thousand dol
lars," etc. These allegations are denied By
certain afiidavits filed by complainant, but il is
manifest that the question of fact thus presen-
ted cannot be finally decided until the final
hearing upon the testimony
The right of the complainant to damages foI
the crossing of its track on the land above de-