Los Angeles herald., 1892-01-05
The Rumored Verdict Did Not
Materialize.
An Opinion Rendered in the Yakima
Railway Case.
A Rank Decision in Favor of q Railroad
Corporation as Against City
Suing for Traffic Accom-
modations.
Associatea Press pispatchea.


elected, was not decided by the United
States supreme court today. Inquiry
into the matter developed the fact that
only eight justices sat in the hearing OF
the case, Justice Bradley being absent
on account of illness. The premature
announcement that the court decided
the case in favor of Boyd by vote of 6
to 8 cannot be correctA therefore, 80
lar as respects the majority by which
the decision is alleged to have been
reached. The justices, of course, would
say nothing whatever as to the case in
advance of the announcement from the
bench OF the decision.
A CURIOUS COINCIDENCE.
A curious coincidence in connection
with the publication in advance of what
the decision of the court would be and
the respective number of justices in
favor OF Boyd and in favor Thayer, de-
yeloped in court today. The case OF the
Northern Pacific against Hiram Dustin,
prosecuting attorney for Yakima
country, Washington, was decided to-
day by the vote hich the publication re-
ferred to, alleged to be the decision of
the Justice in the Boyd-Thayer case. In
this case the court reversed the decision
of the state (then territoriall court, as
would be the result ii Boyd should win
his suit. In the Boyd announcement
two members of the minority were said
to be Republicans and one Democrat.
In the Yakima case today two of the
dissenting justices were Republicans,
namely, Brewer and Harlan, and one
was Democrat, namely, Justice Field
Whether or not some chance utterance
with respect to this case, was overheard
and mistaken for an expression with re-
gard to the Nebraska governorship con-
test, will perhaps never be known, as
the justices consider it violation of Of
fetal proprieties to speak on such a mat
ter, and anyone giving out news, which
is supposed to be an inviolable secret |
until officially proclaimed from the |
bench, would naturally not wish to be
known as the author.
THE YAKIMA DECISION.
The United States supreme court to-
day rendered decision in favor of the
Northern Pacific Railroad company in
mandamus suit brought against it by
the territory of Washington, ex rel
Hiram Dustin, prosecuting attorney of
Yakima county, to compel the railway
to maintain 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 the county seat and 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 townsite of North Yakima, which it
had located on unimproved lands be-
longing to the railway company.
Justice Gray. in the opinion of the |
court, says writ OF mandamus to COM
pei the railroad corporation to do par
ticular act in constructing its road or
buildings or in running its trains can be |
issued only when there is specific legal |
duty on its part to do that act. and |
proof OF breach of that duty. The courts
have so held, even in the matter OF es-
tablishing a station at the terminus of
road. The difficulties in the way of
issuing mandamus are much increased
when it is sought to compel the road to
stop trains at a particular place. The
location OF stations and warehouses for
receiving and delivering passengers and
freight, involves a comprehensive view
OF the interest of the public, as we'll as
of the corporation, and the considera-
tion OF many circumstances concerning
the amount OF business and conven-
ience OF a particular location, which are
more appropriate to be determined by
the directors of the company, or in case
of the abuse OF their discretion by the
legislature or by the administrative
boards entrusted by the legislature with
that duty, than by ordinary judicial
tribunals.
Justice Gray says the charter of the
company does not impose any specific
duty as to the maintenance and size of
the stations and to compel the directors
to be controlled by the courts. by writs
of mandamus, would be inconsistent
with many previous decisions.
The findings below, he says, show
that the people living in the surround
ing country, considered as community,
would be better accommodated at North
Yakima than at Yakima City. The
company denies the fraudulent intent
charged by Yakima City. and it was not
found by the jury that the fact that
tlit lOWn VI kVOEtu dkllld WAS laiQ OuL
by the company on it's own lands can
impair the rights Of the inhabitants of
that town.
Jus ice Brewer rendered vigorous
oral dissent which was concurred in by
Justices Harland and Field. He said
when the railroad built its line it found \
city already established, county seat
and the largest place along it's. road for
many miles. Every public interest re-
quired that station should be estab-
ished there. Instead, the railroad com
pany 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 and
abandoned its public duty to subserve
it's private ends. Anyone who knows
the process OF railway building knows
that it is common thing to build up a
town and pull down another in this
manner. The established town Offers
an insufficient bonus for station some
times. The dissenting justices, he said,
thought the courts had sufficient power
to restrain, in such proceedings.
A SOUTH CAROLINA LAW UPHELD.
The court sustained the law Of the
state of South Carolina which providea