Omaha daily bee. (Omaha [Neb.]) 187?-1922, 1902-07-09
o KNOWLEDGE ABOUT IMPROVE MENTs
Friends of the Court Conspicuous During
the Entire Proceedings
DECIDES AGAINST HAVING A REFEREE
Formidable Array of Legal Talent in
Mandnmus Case BrOusht by the
Bee building Com
pany,
(From a Sian Correspondent.l }

blNCOLN, July b.-lSpeClal.l-In Quea-
ton Of what constitutes a railroad fran
chise, whether the franchise should be as
sessed for purposes Of taxation and whetbo-
the state Board OF Equalization considers ed
and assessed the franchises IN making tho
assessment Of railroad property this year.
are all now squarely before the supreme
court and are being argued in their various
phases by an imposing array of legal tall
ent, They come to the attention Of the court
In the mandamus case OF The Bee Building
Company against The State Board Of Equal.-
zstion. This is an action instituted by Ed
ward Rosewater, editor OF The Bee. in
which the relator, The Bee Building COM
pany, is asking for the issuance of a writ
requiring the board to reconvene and reas-
sess the railroad. Pullman and telegraph
property Of the state and to take the fran
chises into consideration in making the as
sessments.
On the side OF the defendant board, ap-
pearng as friends OF the court are the
attorneys for the three principal railroads
in the state, and the Pullman company.
In the proceedings today they we're always
at the forefront In the defense, although
the attorney general was present in his Of
fcial capacity and guarding zealously the
State Board Of Equalization against the at
tacks Of the attorneys on the relator's
side. e. w. simeral and John d. Howe ap-
peared for The Bee Building company. NJ.
F. Harrington Of O'Neill Is associated with
them in the prosecution Of the case, but ap-
pears in his individual capacity as a CO.
relator.
Plenty of Attorneys.
The attorney general so far as is shown
by the record is the only attorney represent
ing the defendant board. But on the same
side OF the case and just as energetic In
their efforts are John N. Baldwin Of Coun-
ell BLUFFS. representing the Union Pacific
Railroad company; Ben T. White Of Omaha,
representing the Northwestern and Free
mont. Elkhorn &lMissouri Valley railroads;
J.. E. Kelhy or omaha and Frank 4 Bishop
Of Lincoln, representing the Burlington.
and Frank T. Ransom, representing the
Pullman company. There are several attor-
neys sitting with these gentlemen in an
advisory capacity During the forenoon
session of the court General Manager Bid
we'll Of the Elkhorn was present and coun-
seled with his attorney throughout the pro-
ceedings Edward Rosewater of the re-
lator was in the courtroom during both the
morning and afternoon sessions.
The judges were little late in arriving
consequently 1t was nearly II o'clock when
the morning session was begun. The irst
half hour was devoted to some miscellan-
eous matters connected with other cases.
and at 1880 the railroad case was called
The balance OF the morning session was
. consumed by discussion as to the course
of procedure to be followed in the hearing.
The attorneys for the roailroads pre-
sumed at the outset that the REALTORS
would submit testimony and evidence, and
we're quickly apprised that testimony would
be offered. Then the discussion turned to
the question OF whether to have the tes-
timony submitted to a referee or to the
court. The attorneys for the relator pre-
ferred to make their showing direct to the
court. The corporation lawyers mildly pro-
tested, suggesting the appointment of a
! referee to listen to testimony and examine
evidence. The judges heard the argument
and promised a decision at the opening OF
the afternoon session, which was set to be-
gin at 1880.
Court to Hear Testimony.
When the judges reappeared on the
bench at tho appointed time It was an
nounced that the hearing. would proceed
before the court in the regular way and
that any testimony or evidence that might
be offered would be given consideration.
Two subpoenas bad been issued the day
before at the instance of the relator. Ono
was for Auditor Weston and the other was
for Treasurer Stuefer. Mr. Weston was
called first and kept on the stand the en-
tire afternoon.
The auditor was FIRST asked to identify
the records Of the Board of Equalization,
which he did. These records consisted
OF the returns made to the board by the
various railroads and telegraph companies
and the Pullman company; the assessment
books in which the grand assessment rolls
were kept in tabulated form, together with
the minutes Of the meeting, and some re-
, ports from county clerks as to the stand
ard OF value followed In their Jurisdiction
by the assessors.
On cross-examination Mr.. Baldwin asked
the witness II the board had not oonsid-
cred, in making the assessment, that tho
railroads we're actively engaged In doing
business at the time the assessment was
made. This question, which was followed
by numerous of a similar nature, brought
forth serious objections from the attorneys
on the relators' side. who contended that
they did not constitute proper cross-exami-
nation for the reason that Mr.. Weston had
been called simply for the purpose OF iden-
! tifying the records OF his department and
for no other reason. The court was in
clined to sustain these objections at first.
but afterward was more liberal and the
examination took a broad turn.
Assumed TO Represent Respondents,
AS to the appearance OF the corporation
attorneys, Chief Justice Sullivan, after OBJ
jections had been made, declared:
1T will be assumed that the attorneys
are here with authority and may represent
the respondents"
I'VE prefer not to have them participate
in the cross examination OF our witness
unless they consent to be made parties to
the suit. We want the record to show
that they are parties In the litigation "a
they are allowed to proceed" Urged Mr..
Harrington.
The thef justice replied: Il guess you
will have no dihiculty proving that they