The Iola register. [volume] (Iola, Allen County, Kansas) 1875-1902, 1885-02-27
TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL.
NPw YnpE Ephr,fary IA I

NEW 1Ohk, FeUFudry IL, loo0
State of Kansas and Messrs A A. Harris
Clarence A. Seward, W. II. Rossington and
q. S. Greene:
GENTLEaEN:-I beg to lay before you and
through you before the Legislature or other
proper authorities of the State, of the fol
lowing communication concerning the quo
warranto suits of the State of Kansas against
the Kansas Pacific Railroad and the Directors
of the Union Pacific Railway Company.
These suits were brought in the Supreme
Court of Kansas in July, 1883, and removed
by the defendant to the United States Circuit
Court. The Court remanded the causes, pro
forma. to the State Court The defendants
appealed to the Supreme Court of the United
States, which decided that the causes had
Court.
"iThe whole purpose of the SUITS" saws the
Supreme Court of the United States, Ames
vs.. Kansas /. i. l., United States Reports,
462, lis to test the validity of the consolida.
ton. That so far as the State is concerned,
this rests alone on the authority conferred
for that purpose by the acts of Congress is
not denied. If the acts of Congress confer
authority to consolidate, the consolidation is
valid; if not, it is invalid. Clearly, there
fore, the cause arises under these acts of
Congress"
The authority to consolidate is given in the
acts of Congress. The Supreme Court ac-
cordingly decided that the Circuit Court had
rightful Jurisdiction of these causes, and
made an order directing the Circuit Court to
entertain the causes as properly removed
from the State Court, and to proceed accord.
ingly, and the said causes are now pending
in the Circuit Court of the United States for
Kansas. H.tt.
1t is my Judgment the decision of the SUI
preme Court of the United States, in view of
the confiictions of the counsel of the cases,
practically decides them against the State;
but, however this may be, 1 am instructed to
say that the desire of the Board of Directors
of the company is to maintain cordial and
friendly relations to the State of Kansas
that IT is their purpose and policy, quite
aside from strict legal right, to do every.
thing reasonably to be asked to remove any
ground of complaint out of which these
suits may have originated. As evidence of
this have the honor to endorse a copy of
the official letter of Mr.. Charles +. Adams
Jr., President of the company, to the Hon
James Humphrey, Chairman of the Board
of Railroad Commissioners of the State OF
Kansas. As the legal adviser of the com.
pany, have favored the policy embodied in
Mr.. Adams letter, and the views expressed
by MIR. Adams are those entertained by the
cOmpany's officers.
As understand it, the policy which has
already been adopted removes substantially
all the grievances complained of by the State,
except possibly the one in regard to the iu.
rsdctiOn of the Federal Court. The State
claims that the Kansas Pacific, at ano prior
to the date of the consolidation. was exclu.
sively Kansas corporation, and as such
could not remove into the Federal Court
suits brought against it by citizens of the
State of Kansas in the State Courts. 1t is
clear that prior to the consolidation such re.
mOvals could not be made. In the institu-
ton of these suits the State seemed to as
sumo that the consolidation was valid: that
the effect would be to authorize the CONSOLE
dated company to remove from State to
Federal tribunals all classes of causes against
1t, including those arising out of the ordinary
operations of its road.
believe that the companies counsel main
tain that the consolidation did have the ef-
feet to so expand the right of removal, but
when this question was presented to Mr..
Justice Miller and Circuit Judge McCrary
they decided that the company's contention
in this respect was not sound, and that the
consolidated company had by virtue of the
consolidation no greater right of removal
than the Kansas Pacific had before or at the
date of consolidation. The Federal Judges
adhere to and follow this rule, and so this
cause of complaint has practically disap
peared.
This point is now before the Supreme
cided ut or soon after the recOnvening of tho
Supreme Court on the first Monday in March.
If the decision of Mr.. Justice Miller and
Judge McCrary Is affirmed, that will be an
authoritative and final settlement of the
matter against the company.
If the decision is I'm favor of the company,
and the State insists as condition of dis.
missing the quo warranto suits that the COM
pany shall abandon any enlarged right of
removal that 1t derived from the consOljda.
ton. the authority of the State to its counsel
10 dismiss the quo WurTantO SUITS may De
limited accordingly as further showing the
desire and purpose of the company to restore
and maintain friendly relations with the
State. ] would also recommend the COM
many, IL the State'should dismiss the suits, to
.atisfy the Judgment Of costs against the
state, amounting to eight hundred or
inc hundred dollars, and also to reim-
urse to the State the amount Of any ex-
penditures or liabilities incurred to counsel
in the prosecution of these suits; that is. II
the State thinks it is equitable that the COM
pany should do so. 1t may not be improper
relations with the people of Kansas. that 1
believe that the public interests of the com.
pany as the matter now stands, suggest the
wisdom and sound policy of the discontinu.
ance of these suits. Very truly yours,
fSirnedl J. F. DILLON,
General Counsel Union Pacific Railway Com.
pan