Kansas City journal. [volume] (Kansas City, Mo.) 1897-1928, 1897-07-22
Per cent Per cent

The attorneys for the state also ask the
special master TO find
That the stock yards company owns
about 81. .Oo0, 900 worth Of real estate outside
Of that used for stock yards purposes, in
cuding the land now standing in the name
of the State Line Improvement Company.
That the property and stock given to the
various packing companies as fnducement
TO get them TO locate in Kansas City be
considered simply as donations and not as
necessary expenses. .-
That II takes 35 per cent of the gross re-
ceipts 10 pay the operating expenses.
That the vitrihed brick used in the pave
meut Of pens will last from twenty-five TO
thirty years. -r.
That many stock shippers feed their
stock on the trains now because OF the
high prices charged for feed at the Kansas
City yards.
That If the charges for feed were reduced
the shippers would all feed at the yards.
That the charges as fixed by the new law
are reasonable and proper.
That the stock yards company receives it's
largest receipts from Kansas.
That none of the stock is owned in Kan
sas but. instead, is held In Boston.
That because of the Closeness of the corn
belt Kansas City is the largest feeder mar
ket in the world.
That Chicago is the greatest market for
all classes of stock by reason of 1t being
closer to the point OF greatest consump-
ton. l.-..
. That the real party complainant in these
cases is the Kansas City Stock Yards Com
pany; and that ii has no interest what
ever adverse to Charles L. Getting and l..
Z. Higginson, the nominal complainants.
That Getting and Higginson made no ef-
fort in good faith with the managing di-
rectors or stockholders of the company
10 secure action with a view of disregarding
the new law.
That these st1its bava baau copducted and
managed by the stock yards company, and
not the said Getting and Higginson.
That the company does not operate or use
any railroad motive power.
Kansas City yards are unloaded in Kan
sas. kept in Kansas and sold in Kansas
tn q, respecting the issue OF Sl.667. 100 of
stock, issued in '94, about 81 600 900 thereof
must either he in Boston not paid for or
the stock yards company should have cred
IL there of that amount of money.
In his argument to-day Judge Martin at
said there was no evidence that the COM
pany owned Bell street or had any right
70 use II Inc company never INTRODUCED
Il owned Bell street, which was vacated to
Il by the council, unless there was proof
that the act of the council was not valid.
He intimated that there was doubt about
the legality OF the vacation. He stated
that the tax receipts of the company show
ed that IL was paying taxes on streets and
alleys vacated elsewhere, but was not pay
ing taxes on Bell street or any OF the
streets OF dAttgS east OF H. II makes no
difference" he satd, whether il is an
Irishman. who fences UP a few feet OF
the street for a pig sty, or a rich corpora
tiOn which takes the whole street for a
great stock yards the use OF the property
does not prove ownership"
Judge Martin laid stress on the fact that
deeds and other evidences of ownership Tor
every other tract OF land claimed by the
company were introduced I'm evidence but
the ordinance which gave the company
Bell street was not produced. The COM
pany cove ed every part Of its case thor
oughly; and its omission TO show the ordi-
nance IN question was. he said, peculiar
He argued that the city could take pos
session OF Bell street and use IL. unless the
20 introduce.