The Iola register. [volume] (Iola, Allen County, Kansas) 1875-1902, 1898-09-23
THE PLAIN FACTS.
Why the Kansas Stock Yards Law
Is Totally Ignored.
Attorney General Boyle's stipulatIons in
the Case-Ex-Justice Horton Shows
Where the Stock Yards Company
Was Granted Privileges.

stock growers and stock shippers of Kansas.
should understand that the popuist adminis-
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 vindicated In every par
ticulur 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 Judge to relieve the
cases in his court from the consequences OF
Boyles acts and to secure to the people and
stock shippers Of the state the statutory reduce
tion Of yarduge and feeding rates. which he had
decided were their due and right but without
avail
What are known as the stock yards cases"
were the cases Of Charles L. Getting complain
ant against the Kansas City Stock Yards COM
pany, l. c. Boyle, attorney general ct al. No
'42', hled in the United States circuit court at
Topeka, March 49, 1897; and the case Of Fran
els Lee Higginson against the same defendants
mo 1453 filed in the same court March 49, 1897
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 stool,
yards company, certain persons named as ofi-
GERS OF said company. ana 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
out the compliments being residents Of other
states. had that right II 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 n city ordinance, they inquire. rs a
[ bitter litigation with the city to be conducted
/ by one stakeholder for the corporation and all
other stockholders, because the amount OF his
dividends are dimtnished!' They then say the
/ inquiry answers itself, and dismiss the suit be
cause the stockholder 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 ne has exhausted all the means
within his reach to obtain within the corpor-
alton Itself, the redress his grievances or
action in conformity to hiS wishes He must
make an earnest, not 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 as body in the matter
] snow
a case II this is not done where II could be
| done or 1t was not reasonable to require II"
rms Is for the purpose Of showing that the
suit is not colIusive one between individual
stockholders and the corporation, to confer
upon court Of the United States Jurisdiction
which II would not otherwise have had.
The first OF the stock yard suits alleges that
only on March II. 1897, did the stock yards
company and its officers declare that It would
enforce the provisions OF this act from and after
March 10, the day the bill was sworn to before
the clerk Of the United States court in Topelxa
and filed in that court Getting the com
plainant, was In the east and the notice
was given TO one Hubbard as his agent
tan employe OF the stock yards company
probably. II alleges that he Immediately
demanded OF the officers mot the board OF di-
rectors or the stockhOlders) not the bringing
Of a suit similar to that which he commenced
the next day, bus that they the officers re-
woke their orders 70 put the law In operation
The next morning he appears In Topeka with
long typewriter bill which must have taken
several days to prepare, and At an early hour
swears 10 II and files IT, Only the officers OF
the company could have had that prescience OF
coming events, which enabled them to prepare
for him that Of which he knew nothing until
few hours before he left Kansas CITY so as to
be in Topeka early on the following morning
Evidently the attorneys for the stock wards
company realized that the suit was manifestly
collustve because week later March 90 1897
they get the complainant Getting 70 bolster
the proceeding with his affidavit that Hubbard
was his agent 10 do what he did. and on March
" ls9t have Hubbard by later anidayit pro-
duce the written notices which the officers had
accepted service OF OF March II Further
on March g. 1881, the same attorneys filed the
Hlggiusou suit with ldentically the same alle-
cations, except recitng public notice" by
The stock yards company and its officers on
March l. ana demand on the board of direct
mr. az HNHFH HFaFHHH. No. M
the same day by the executive commit
tee hy formal resolution. No attempt
was shown 10 get the board OF direct
orS together, or TO get them or the
executive committee 20 order a suit In injunc-
ton against the attorney general, such aS Cot
ung ana Hirgiuson commenced IN their own
names. Several other anldavits were were fled
later attempting to bolster up the Jurisdiction
OF the court ln the Getting case. and the two
cases were subsequently consolidated so as TO
further conceal the .nvaldty OF the FIRST suit
but In the further prosecution OF the cases ali
DISCUSSES were laid aside and the Kansas CITY
Stock Yards company ana It's officers emerged
as clearly as can be rs the real compliments
furnishing all the sinews Of war all 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
Higglngson and have supposed the suits to be-
~ they were, In fact the Kansas City Stock
Yards company against l.. C. Boyle attorney |
general
with these facts patent to every one we ind
the attorney general, after he had achieved
the preliminary Victories and escaped by |
Judge Fosters decision from the temporary !
restraining orders and lniunctions we find Mr. |
Boyle actually STIMULATING that there was no |
collusion between the complainant In the above |
enuued suits and the defendant the Kansas |
CITY Stock Yards company or any OF It's ohi- |
csTs, directors attorneys, solicitors or counsel |
In respect 10 the bringing or the prosecution of
the said bills or either Of them and that said |
bills were not when the same were exhibited |
ana are not collusve 10 confer upon q court of |
the United states jurisdiction OF the said |
causesl"
Restraining orders were granted restraining |
the defendants named in the actions from |
carrying out the provisions of the law above |
referred TO, until an application was made IN |
the consolidated actions Demurrers were filed |
70 the original bills of complaint and upon the |
hearing OF these demurrers the preliminary |
questions were principally settled by Judge |
Foster in an opinion which was filed on April |
u 1907 ana Is published in volume 40 OF the
Federal ReUOrtpr A 4