The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1892-01-05
Justices Brewer, Harlan and Field Protest
Against Giving Railroads the Right to Dis
criminate in Favor Of New Towns.
Majority Decision That Will Cause Dis
satisfaction in Some Quarters.
No Announcement Made Yesterday in the
Boyd-Thsyer Contest-Action of the House
of Representatives In Similar Case.
PROTEST OF JUSTICES.

Majority Opinion IN an Important Case.
Special to the Indianapolis Journal
WASHINGTON, Jan. AIN the Supreme
Court to-day Associate Justices Brewer,
Harlan and Field laid down some law
which will attract widespread attention,
especially in the far West. 1t was pro-
voked by the case against the Northern
Pacific Railroad Company from tho State
of Washington. The railroad company.
sometime after Yakima City was estab-
Iished, withdrew it's station from that point
and located it some four miles distant,
where it established the city of North
Yakima. The object of the company was,
of course. to create boom for its own
town lots. The first city established
brought suit by the county attorney to
compel the railroad to maintai for the ac-
commodation of the people station at
Yakima City. and in the suit it was sue
cessful. The company appealed to the Su-
preme Court. holding that the greatest
number of it's patrons were accommodated
by the station last established. and that il
was not in the interest of the public that
the station first established should be
maintained also. Six of the members of
the court took this view of the case and
overruled the decision below. but Asso-
ciate Justices Brewer, Harlan and Field
dissented.
In announcing the ground taken by the
three dissenting justices there was great
earnestness shown in the manner and
words of Justice Brewer. who was ap-
pointed from Kansas. and Is. therefore.
familiar with the manner in which railroad
companies in the West strike down cities
in which they are not in landed way in
terested for the purpose of building up
their own towns to sell corner and inside
lots. Mr. Brewers voice arose high above
the din about the courtroom as he init
mated in unmistakable language that the
position assumed by the majority of the
bench that q railroad company has the
right to locate its own stations without re-
gard to the interests of the public was
neither justified by law nor common
decency. He said he was very familiar
with the motives which prompted railway
companies in the far West to tear down q
thriving town in order that they might
build up another town upon ground owned
by them.
JUSTICE BREWERS REASONS.
'T hold, as do the two Justices dissenting
from this opinion" said Justice Brewer.
feelingly. "that the Supreme Court of the
United States, If not the courts of the
States. has the right to compel q railroad
com mpany to locate and maintain q station
where the interests of the public demand
it. 1 hold further, that it is violation of
the law and moral crime for great cor
poration and public servant to destroy the
property of others for their own interests.
/ hold that the Supreme Court of the
United States has the authority, as an
illustration of what the dissenting justices
stand upon. to force a company to main-
tain established stations wherever the in
terests of the public demand them. even to
the detriment of the company's interests.
For instance. should railroad be con-
structed from Evansville to South Bend,
in the same State. via Indianapolis, and it
should please the company TO 60 four or
five miles out of the latter oity to locate it's
station, the Supreme Court has the author
ity to compel 1t to establish and keep up
station In the city of Indianapolis"
Three or four of the most prominent law
yers In the country, including two ex-
Attorney generals, who heard the state
ment of Justice Brewer, said afterward
that it was good law and should be en-
forced. To make the Yakima City case
plain 1t should be added that at the time the
Northern Pacific withdrew it's station and
established rival city there was no town
at all on the second site and therefore 1t
interest of public and private property.
Justice Gray, in the majority opinion of the
court says that O writ of mandamus to
compel q railroad corporation to do q par
ticular act in constructing its road or
buildings. or in running it's trains. can be
issued only when there is q specific legal
duty on its part 10 do that act and clear
proof of breach of duty. The courts
have so held, even in the matter of estsb-
fishing a station at the terminus of road.
The difficulties in the way of issuing a
mandamus is much increased when it is
sought to compel road to stop trains at q
particular place. The location of stations
and W warehouses for receiving and delivering
passengers and freight involves a compre-
hensive view of the interest of the public,
as we'll as of the corporation. and a consid-
GRAFTON of many circumstances concerning
the amount of business and convenience of
particular locations, which are more ap-
propriate to be determined by the directors
of the company, or in case of abuse of their
discretion. by the Legislature. or by ad-
ministrative boards intrusted by the Legis-
lature with that duty, than by the ordinary
judicial tribunals. Justice Gray says that
the charter of the company does not I'M
pose any specific duty as to the mainte-
nance and size of stations. and that to COM
pei the directors to be controlled by the
courts by writs of mandamus in establish
ing stations would be inconsistent with
many previous decisions. The findings be-
low, he says, show that the people living in
the surrounding country. considered as q
community, wOuld be better accommodate
ed at North Yakima than at Yakima City.
The company denies the fraudulent inten-
tion charged by Yakima City, and ii was
not found by the jury. The fact that the
town of North Yakima was laid out by the
company on its own land cannot impair the
~ ~ Of hah tav 70 nf hat %4xv