St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1889-12-04
ONE FOR THE OMAHA.
A Suit Involving a Big Land
Grant Decided in It's
Favor.
Wisconsin'S Supreme Court
Holds That Lobby Agree
Ments Are Illegal.
Trunk Line Magnates Abolish
the Payment Of All Com
missions.
Exceptions Made by the Grand
Exceptions Made by the Grand
Trunk and Vermont Cen
trail Lines.

Special to the Globe.
MADISON, Wis, Dec. S.-The supreme
court to-day rendered q decision in the
most important railroad case that ever
came before the courts of Wisconsin.
1t was the case of the Chippewa Valley
d Superior Railway company. respond
ent, VS.. the Chicago, st. Paul, Minneap-
oils & Omaha Railway company, in
which the title to land grant from
Veazie tOsSuperior, distance Of sixty
miles, was involved. The dispute arose
out of contract entered into between
these companies, the former of which
is, in reality, the Chicago, Mil
waukee 81 st. Paul. At that
time the grant made originally to the
Portage d Superior Railroad company,
consisting of 100000 acres of land,
mostly heavily timbered with pine and
hard wood, and was about to lapse be-
cause of nOn-fuliiilment OF the condi-
tons on the part of the company.
ThereupOn, the companies abOvenamed
set about securing the forfeited grant,
but it was plain that if all entered
the contest no one would get the
grant. Hence, a meeting of the
representatives of the railways now
; interested was arranged and it was
agreed to let the Omaha company
take the grant without any opposition.
and the roads agreed to aid this road as
best they could, for which courtesy on
the part of the other roads the Omaha
was to turn over
SHARE OF THE SPOILS,
in all, about fourth of the entire grant,
Al. t,a
line, etc. The scheme worked beauti-
fully. The Omaha company gobbled
the grant and built the road. but
when the other companies sought to
get their share of the land grant
the Omaha company stood them off, and
they sought the courts for redress. The
lower court decided against the Omaha
company, which thereupon demurred
on the ground that the contract was a
''lobby contract" and against public pol
icy. The circuit court Overruied the
demurrer, but the supreme court to-day
reversed the ruling. In the opinion
rendered Justice CaSSaday says: ain
the matter of dispOsing of land grants.
as in all other matters of legislation,
it is important to the continued
welfare of the state and all its citizens
that all improper avenues of approach
should be effectually closed" He then
quotes some maxims from Justice Field
on the subject of lobby contracts, -
and continues: "These maXimS of leg
slative and official propriety and duty,
it is believed, are as old as our govern
ment, and it may be safely assumed
that they will never be brought
in dispute by the American
courts. To properly aid in WELD
ing the sovereign power of great
people under the sanction of an oath,re-
possesses freedom from any and all eX-
traneous bias and purchased influence.
They imply continued vigilance for the
public veal and the faithful perform
ance of every public duty. In the exc
cution of such official trusts no favors
can be secured. and no obligation in
Cured" Two of the judges diSsented
to the decision rendered. The amount
involved in the case is something over
81, 600. 900,