The Emporia weekly news. [volume] (Emporia, Kan.) 1881-1889, 1883-11-08
A NOVEL ANSWER.
Tie X. p and U p. Railroad Company
Deny that they are State
R0vrnrafinna


Commonwealth: The answer of the
Kansas Pacific Railway Company to the
petition in quo tcarTGatO, now pending
In the Supreme Court, was filed yester-
day, with the clerk Of that court 1t is
q lengthy document, and sets forth some
novel propositions, which win be
viewed with much surprise By many
who have been accustomed 10 regard
the defendent corporation as the crea-
1taSe Of Kansas, existing uBder- Kaasas
laws. Aithough 1t ~as sued As Kan
sas corporation, organized under and
created By an act OF the territory, passed
- 1855, and although IL entered Its APP
peefance e such, its answer starts out
with the sweeping allegation tAAt itt IL
not corporation created by ANY law Of
the territory or state Of Kansas, and that
It claims no rights, privileges or fran
chises &c such. IL alIeges that il was Great
ed by an act of Congress; that by virtue Of
the rIghfs conferred by that act 1t was
organized, bnilt its line of road. and I'M
der such authority 1t has ever since OPP
Grated and still continues TO operate its
line of road; that the road constructed
BE- 1t is on q different line than
that designated by the territorial
act and that the consolidation IL has
entered, into with the Union Pacific and
Denver Pacific EailFoad companies was
made under authority found in the acts
of congress creating it, and not under
any law of the state.
1t denies the right Of the state TO for
felt its franchises, claiming that the par
amount control over it exists solely In
the government of the United States. 1t
denies the existence of all the facts Al
legged by the attorney general a. specific
causes of forfeiture. II denies that 1t
Is parallel and competing line with
the Union Pacific railroad. It denies
that the consolidation IL in violation Of
the state laws. although in the same
breath ii reiterates its denial that 1t Is q
state corporation or subject TO its laws
It admits that it does not keep its gen.
eral offices in this state, but says that
there was no such law IN force when
the territorial charter Of the LeaYen-
worth, PaWnee s. Western railroad COM
pany was passed, under which it dis
claims all right, privilege or author.
lty. 1t admits that 1t has not named
any person. since its consolidation, upon
whom service of process may be made
as required by the law of this state, but
says that il had named and designated
such persons before consolidating and
that such designation and appointment
Is in full force and unrevOked. 1t closes
with genial denial of all the allega
lions Of the petition not expressly adj
mitted, and attaches as exhibits copies
of the acts Of congress and the legisla-
ture of Kansas, and other public dOcu-
ments pertaining to the Kansas Pacific
and Union Pacific railroad companies.
1t is verified by the affidavit of Sidney
Dillon as president of the company.
The answer of the Union Pacific rail.
way company to tho petitions requiring
them to show by what authority it exer-
cises the franchises of the Kansas Paci
fic railroad company was fled at the
same time, setting forth substantially
the same facts and allegations. Late in
the afternoon petition and bond for
a removal of the case to the United
States circuit court were filed.