The Globe-republican. [volume] (Dodge City, Kan.) 1889-1910, 1898-09-29
THE PLAIN FACTS.
Why the Kansas Stock Yards Law
Is Totally Ignored.
Atsorney General Boyle's stipulatsons In
the Case-Ex-Justice Horton Shows
where the Stock Yards Company
Was Granted Privileges.

the Case-Ex-JHstice Horton Shows
where the Stock Yards Company
Was Granted Privileges.
The people Of Kansas, and especially the
stock growers and stock shippers Of Kansas
should understand that the populist admins
tration, and especially Attorney General Boyle.
are responsible for the want Of enforcement Of
the stock yards Law Of 1897. and its practical
notification, though indicated in every par
ticular by the United States court
The conduct OF Attorney General Boyle and
his conduct alone, has prevented and is still
preventing them from reaping the benefits OF
that legislation. Judge Foster attempted in
every way. honorable in a judge, to relieve the
cases in his court from the consequences Of
Boyle's acts and to secure to the people and
stock shippers Of the state the statutory reduc-
ton OF yardage and feeding rates, which he had
decided were their due and right, nut without
avail
What are known as the stock yards cases"
were the cases Of Charles G. Getting. complain
ant against the Kansas City Stock Yards COM
pany, L. C. Boyle. attorney general, ct al, No
1877. filed in the United States circuit court at
Topeka, March Is, 1897; and the case OF Fran
els Lee HigginSon against the same defendants
No. 1853, filed in the same court March 30 1891
These actions were brought by the complain
ants as stock holders OF the Kansas City Stock
Yards company, because their dividends would
be diminished thereby. to restrain the stock
yards company, certain persons named as OFF,
GERS Of said company, and Hon Louis C. Boyle
as attorney general. from putting into force the
stock yards law.
The stock yards company was corporation
organized under the laws Of the state OF Kan
saS. chartered by this state and could not have
brought the suits in the United States cour I
but the complainants. being residents OF other
states had that right il the suits were honestly
brought for rights for which they prosecute in
their own names. But the supreme court Of
the United States has sharply censured the
practice Of the stockholders bringing actions
really for the benefit OF the corporation
In one case brought to enjoin the enforce
ment Of a city ordinance. they inquire, rs a
bitter litigation with the city to be conducted
by one stakeholder for the corporation and ali
other stockholders. because the amount OF his
dividends are diminished" They then say the
inquiry answers itself. and dismiss the suit be-
cause the stockhoider had no right in himself
TO prosecute it
In the same case. discussing the practice
they say: Before share holder is permitted
in his own name to institute and conduct a
litigation which usually belongs to the cor
poration. he should show to the satisfaction Of
the court that he has exhausted all the means
within his reach to obtain, within the corpor-
alton itself. the redress o his grievances or
action in conformity to his wishes He must
make an earnest, not a simulated, effort with
the managing body Of the corporation to in
duce remedial action on their part, and this
must be made apparent to the court. II time
permits, or has permitted, he must show that
he has made an honest effort to obtain action
by the stockholders body in the matter
of which he complains, and he must show
q case IL this IS not done, where il could be
done or 1t was not reasonable to require it,
This is for the purpose OF showing that the
suit is not coliusve one. between individual
stockholders and the corporation to confer
upon q court OF the United States jurisdiction
which it would not otherwise have had.
The first of the stock yard suits alleges that
only on March p 1897. did the stock yards
company and its officers declare that it would
enforce the provisions Of this act from and after
March 13 the day the bill was sworn to before
the clerk Of the United States court in Topeka
and filed in that court Getting. the COM
plainant was in the east and the notice
was given to one Hubbard as his agent
ian employee OF the stock yards company
probably 1t alleges that he Immediately
demanded Of the officers mot the board of d.
rectors or the stockholders not the bringing
OF o suit similar to that which he commenced
the next day. bu. that they. the officers. re-
woke their orders to put the law in operation
The next morning he appears in Topeka with a
long typewriter bill which must have taken
several days to prepare, and at an early hour
swears to it and files it Only the officers OF
the company could have had that preScieuce OF
coming events. which enabled them to prepare
for him NIT Of which ne knew nothing until q
few hours before he left Kansas City SO as to
be in Topeka early on the following morning
Evidently the attorneys for the stock yards
company realized that the suit was manifestly
collusive. because a week later March %. 1897
they get the complainant, Cotticg. 70 bolster
the proceeding with his affdavit that Hubbard
was his agent TO do what he did and on March
-. 1897. have Hubbard by a later affidavit pro-
duce the written notices which the officers had
accepted service OF Of March II Further
on March %, 1891. the same attorneys filed the
Higgiuson suit with identically the same ALE
cations, except reciting public notice. by
the stock yards company and its officers on
March II and . demand on the board Of direct
orS Of the company on March - and Q refusal
the same day by the executive commit
tee by formal resolution No attempt
vas shown to get the board OF direct
ors together. or to get them or the
executive committee TO order q suit in injunc-
ton against the attorney general, such as Cot
ting and HigginSon commenced in their own
names Several other afildavits were were filed
later attempting to bolster up the jurisdiction
OF the court in the Getting case and the two
cases were subsequently consolidated SO as to
further conceal the invalidity Of the first suit
but in the further prosecution Of the cases. all
DISCUSSES were laid aside and the Kansas City
Stock Yards company and its officers emerged
Is clearly as can be as the real complainantS,
furnishing all the sinews Of war; al the wit
nesses, evidence and attorneys so much SO that
few people who read the different accounts of
the progress made ever heard Of Getting or
Higgingson and have supposed the suits to be.
as they were, in fact. the Kansas City Stock
Yards company against I. C. Boyle. attorney
general
With these facts patent to every one. we find
the attorney general, after he had achieved
the preliminary victories, and escaped By
Judge Fosters decision from the temporary
restraining orders and injunctiols. We find Mr..
Boyle actually STIMULATING that there was no
collision between the complainant in the above
entitled suits and the defendant the Kansas
City Stock Yards company or any o: its OH
GERS directors. attorneys. solicitors or counsel
In respect to the bringing or the prosecution Of
the said bills. or either OF them and that said
bills were not. when the same were exhibited
and are not colluSivs to confer upon a court OF
the United States jurisdiction OF the said
causes"
Restraining orders were granted ressr.;r,nc