The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1903-07-25
RAILROADS MUST
MAINTAIN STATION
ONCE ESTABLISHED
Supreme Court Tells Northern
Pacific 1t Must Restore Depot
at Button on Grounds of
Duty to People.

Although the town of Bluffton has
declined in population until 1t now
comprises within it's corporate limits
but seventeen families of about 100. the
Northern Pacific Railroad company
must restore the railroad station which
it removed from there to point about
three miles distant more than two
years ago.
So says the supreme court in de-
cision filed yesterday, in which the
mandate of the state railroad and
warehouse commission is affirmed.
This case has attracted general in
terest and has been vigorously fought
on both sides, not alone for the sake OF
the questions Immediately involved.
but because of their bearing upon nu
merous other situations in which the
same conditions exist.
|. One notable feature of the history
of the case is that in the course of the
proceedings, from their beginning, w
j. Donahower. now assistant attorney
general. has appeared in support OF
both sides of the question. The action
was started before Mr.. DonahoWer's
connection with the office of the at
torney general began, and he then ap-
peared in defense of the position OF
the railroad company. LatPr, when
the railroad company appealed to the
supreme court from the order of the
railroad and warehouse commission. it
fell to the lot Of Mr. Donahower as
assistant attorney general, to conduct
the case on behalf of the state in sup
port of the order of the railroad and
warehouse commission. In the fulfill
1nent of this duty his familiarity with
the matter gave him a great advan-
tage. -
History cf the Case.
The Northern Pacific company To-
Gated it's station at Bluffton in 1895
and for some years following the place
was a town of considerable size and
business Importance. having good
water power. mills and various other
industries.
April a. 1901, the railroad company
removed its station from Button to a
point three miles farther east, where
IT has since been maintained. A small
waiting station was placed at Bluffton
but no agent was located there and
trains only stopped at stated times on
signal. This change the company ex-
planned on the ground that Bluffton
was dead, and business did not justify
continuance of the former service.
1t was shown in the course of the
i hearing that at the time the station
was removed there were at Bluffton a
-
other industries. and that number OF
farmers of that vicinity depended
upon the Bluffton station for railroad
facilities and could not as convenient
ly use the new station. 1t was shown
that the lumber operations at Bluffton
had fallen off, but. on the other hand
that other industries had been estab-
lished there and in the vicinity and
that the railroad company had taken
no owl 1lor cfn n 10 n vi
station of service to the people of that
district.
The railroad company argued that
Bluffton was located on a grade. which
made it costly and fnconyenient to
stop trains there. but this the court
refused to consider, since the grade
had not appeared to interfere in the
course of the years when the compa-
ny maintained the station at Button
Courts Opinion.
Justice Lovely wrote the opinion, in
which the court says:
TT would seem to be now well set
tied upon principles of public policy
that the decisive question in such a
case should not be the convenience and
benefit of railway companies alone
They undoubtedly have a right to con-
slider their own profit and convenience
largely, but also owe duties to the
public, for which reasons they have
been permitted to establish their roads
and enjoy many substantial privileges
depending upon benefits which will ac-
crue to patrons adjacent to their lines
and incidental to the obligations thus
imposed must be the duty to treat the
public fairly and furnish them with
reasonable facilities to enjoy the ben
efits they confer"
Following are the syllabi in two
other cases decided yesterday by the
supreme court:
Other Decisions.
William F. Hunt as receiver of the ALLIE
MAMMA bank, appellant, VS.. The Hausel
Mailing Company, respondent.
Order reversed. Lovely J.
Fruit Dispatch Company. appellant VS.
William A. Murphy and Fred L. Murphy
copartners doing business as B. Presley
& Co., respondents.
Order affirmed. Lovely, J.