, 1890-02-20
UNTIL NAY


status Of the case is shown in n report
published in the Denver Nelos yesterday
1t says: Yesterday afternoon MI. n.
Isaac Van Dyke and Hon. Willard Teller
argued before Judge Hallett the motion
for a peremptory writ of mandamus in
the Fort Collins suit against the Union
Pacific Railway company. The history
Of the suit is briefly this: The Union Pa
oi6c or Colorado Central, as it is claimed.
built in 1879 q road from Fort Collins to
cheyenne, Wyo. The branch was forty
one miles long, and the opening wa con-
sidered = great era in the history OF Lari-
mer county. Several year, Aso the COM
pany suddenly abandoned the line. Since
then the residents of that town and coun
" have been compelled to make the trip
to Cheyenne via Greeley. which is eighty
miles longer and consequently more ex-
psnsve. This measur by the railway
company excited the ire OF the people Of
Fort Collins. and through Mr.. Van Dyke
they Brought suit against the company for
$500. 900. They also ~petitioned to have
the road opened and operated, claiming
it as their right. Several rulings have
been made in the suit. but yesterday was
the first day that any lengthy argument
was made on either side. Then it was al
most one side. the attorney for the prose-
oarors speaking for over an hour.
Mr.. Van Dyke took mp the answer of
the defendants. He cited a great many
statutes and cases to uphold his position
The answer to the application was ~evasive
and untrue. and the defendant knew thai
it was. He could bring afidsvits to
prove that this was the case. He wa
hired bv the people Of Fort Collins, and
in justice to them Was compelled to state
what he knew to be the facts. The
answer stated that there had been no
lease OF the road nv the Colorado Central
to the Union Pacific. That DENIAL he
considered frivolous. 1t was we'll known
that the Colorado Central scarcely re-
tsinel the shell Of what it formerly was.
The Union Pacific had sucked the very
substance out Of it. aud the attorney be-
fore him knew it as well As be. What
ever belonged to the Colorado Central
was the property OF the Unfou Pacific.
The answer further made the dicta-
torial assertion that the Fort Collins peo-
pie did not need the road. This he
thought was worse thsn the other state
ment. The very building of the road
showed that it was needed. But the
company had to tear it up so as to com
pei the psople Of Larimer county to go
around about Greeley and pay the extra
freight and passenger rates. The answer
stated that the people had one route to
Cheyenne now and could go that AS well
as not. 1t might have lust as we'll have
said that they could 20 by the way of
Omaha.
With regard to the claim that this
court had no jurisdiction over the case be-
cause six miles of the road lay in Wyo-
ming, he thought it was . sample OF the
other sections of the answer. The peo-
pie Of Fort Collins brought the suit
against tie company to compel them to
reopen the road. It was added in the
answer that il at any time there should
be a necessity for the road it could be
easily repaired He should like to know
how. The company was then hauling
the last bit of iron on it. He knew this
and a great many others know it also.
The railroad when once built. he main.
tanned. belonged BY law Of the land to the
people. 1t did not belong to the company.
The people built it BY the sweat of their
brows and no one could take it from
them The citizens Of Fort Collins were
paving interest on the money value of
that road to day and had done so ever since
it was built The plaintiffs were ready to
rest their case on the lease made to the
Union Pacific if Mr.. Teller would allow
the deed to go in evidence. That would
show that the charter stated that the road
was to be run for a term of fifty years.
The company knew this and did not dare
to admit the deed. All the people OF
Larimer county demanded was honest
treatment They simply asserted their
rights and asked for substantial justice in
the case. II that road WAS not rebuilt
be should leave Fort Collins, it would SO
iniure the place.
Mr.. Teller. in reply. sartically al
luded to his opponents lengthy argu-
ment After the speech of the lawyer he
had begun to think that this WAS really an
important case as was claimed; and after
the light shed ON it by his honorable Cd
poaent he was sure it must be- He
should not reply to the diHuse areumen.
of Van Dyke. The answer of the defend
ant denied there had been any lease of
the road made to it There was = ques-
ton OF fact, not . question of law. to be
settled like any other question of this
kind. The denial INST be disposed Of BY
some other manner, too. than his oppon-
ent to X. The defense had denied 10
toto the very right on which the plaintiff
based their claim If 1t was correct then
there ended the cave
Judge HaIlett briefly reviewed oeotro-