The Helena independent. [volume] (Helena, Mont.) 1875-1943, 1892-01-05
Guessing at the Nature Of the
Result When 1t liz An
nounced.
Through Town Without Stopping
Other Decisions.

tuTo HnHOuuCSH6nb LlAb tu0 COurt nhu u9-
cidod the case in favor of Boyd, by vote
of six to three, cannot be correct, therefore,
80 far as respects the majority by which the
was alleged to have been reached.
The justices, Of course. would Say nothing
whatever as to the case in advance of an
nouncement from the bench Of the decision.
A curious coincidence in connection with
the publication in advance of what the de-
cision of the court would be. ana the
respective number of justices in favor of
BOYD and in favor of Thayer, developed in
court to-day. The case of the Northern
Pacific against Hiram Dustin, prosecuting
attorney of Yakima county, Washington,
was decided to-day by the vote which the
publication referred to alleged would be the
decision of the justices in the Boyd Thayer
case, In this case the court reversed the
decision of the state (then territoriaD court.
as would be the result if Boyd wins his suit.
In the Boyd announcement two of the mem
bers of the minority were aaid to be repub-
licans and one democrat. In the Yakima
case two justices are republicans, Brewer
and Harlan, and one democrat, Field.
Whether or not some chance utterance with
respect to this case was overheard and
taken for an expression with regard to the
Nebraska governorship contest, perhaps
will never be known, as the justices consider
it violation Of the official proprieties to
speak on such matters, and any one giving
out such news, which is supposed to be an an
inviolable secret until officially proclaimed
from the bench would naturally not wish
to be known as the author.
The supreme court to-day affirmed the
decision Of the lower court in the suit
brought BY the Pacific Express company
l -. .T... f.. n
Weed, auditor and attorney general, re-
spSfaa aasivsly, OF Missouri. sRv@ the suit tho
ex press company sought to restrain the col
lection OF a tax of $2 on each 800 Of re-
ceipts, levied BY act Of the state legislature
against express companies doing business
tackled the consttutionality OF the act as
an interference with interstate commences;
declared that it violated the fourteenth
amendment, giving equal protection to all,
and also as contrary to the provision of the
Missouri state constitution requiring
This court, opinion by Justice Lamar,
says the contention that a tax is levied upon
interstate commerce is unsound; it says the
tax does not relate to interstate business.
but entirely to state business, and
expressly limited to the receipts for
that it was not the intention of the legisla-
ture to interfere with, or tax, interstate
commerce in any way whatever, The other
points raised, it also holds are not we'll
taken, for the reason that the tax applies
equally to all companies doing express
business
Tho court also rendered decision to-day
in favor of the Northern Pacific Railway
company in the mandamuB suit brought
against it by the territory of Wash
lngton, OK rel. Hiram Dustin, pros
ecuting attorney Of Yakima county,
to compel the railway. to maintain
q station and stop its trains at Yakima
City. Justice Gray rendered the opinion
of the court. Justices Brewer, Field and
Harlan dissented. The bill set forth that
Yakima City at the time of the building of
the road was county seat and the largest
town in that county. and the object of the
railroad company in refusing to make
Yakima City railway station was to ruin
the town and enhance the value of the
townste of North Yakima, which it had
located on unimproved lands belonging to
the railway company. Justice Gray, in the
the opinion of the court, says writ of
mandamus to compel the railroad corpora
tion to do particular act in constructing
its road or buildings or in running its
trains can be issued only when thore
is specific legal duty ON its part
to do that act and clear proof of beach
of duty. The courts have so held
even in the matter of establishing q station
at the terminus of road. Tho difficulties
| in issuing q mandalnus are much Increased
when it is sought to compel road to stop
trains at a particular place. The location
of stations and warehouses for receiving
and delivering passengers and freight in
wolves comprehensive view of the interest
of the public as we'll as of the corporation,
and the consideration OF many circum-
stances concerning the amount Of business
and the convenience Of a particular loca-
tlon, which are more appropriate to be de-
termined by the directors of the company,
or, in the case Of abuse OF their discretion.
by the legislature or by administrative
boards entrusted by the legislature with
that duty, than by ordinary judicial tri-
bunals Justice Gray says the charter of
the company does not impose any specific
duty as to tho maintenance and size Of sta
tions, and that to compel the directors to
be controlled by courts by writs of man
damus in establishing stations would be
inconsistent with munv previous decisions
The tndinRs below, he says, show that peo--
Pile living in the surrounding country con-
sidared as u community would be better
accommodated at North Yakima than at
Yakima City. The company denies fraud
ulent intent charged by Yakima City, and
it was not found by the jury. The fact
that the town of North Yakima was laid
out by tho company on its own land can
that town.
Justice Brewer randered a vigorous oral
dissent, which was concurred in by Justices
Harlan and Field. He said when the rail
road built its line it found city olr ady
established, u county seat and tho lare-
est place along its road for
many miles. Every public interest re-
quir ed that II station should be established.
Instead, the railroad company went three
or four miles further along and laid out
town on its own land, No reason was given
for such course. The railroad neglected
uln ttu In h,tv IN
its private ends. Any one who knows the
process of railway building knows it is
common thing to build up one town and
pull down another III this manner, when an
established town offers an insufficient bo.
nus for u station. Sometimes dissenting
Justices" he snid, Thought the courts had
sufficient power TO restrain such procesd-
ings."
The court sustained the law OF the state
CT South Carolina, which provides that the