The independent., 1903-04-02


States supreme court said:
"a railroad corporation doubtless
holds its station, grounds, tracks, and
right of way as it's PRIVATE prop
erty, but for the public use for which
it was incorporated; and may, in ITS
discretion, permit them to be occu-
pied by other parties with structures
convenient for the receipt and de-
livery of freight upon ITS railroad, so
long as free and safe passage is left
for the carriage of freight and pas
sengers. (Grand Trunk r. Co. VS..
Richardson, 81 u. S., 454; % U. s.
Sup. CT. Rep, 1861 But how FAR
the railroad company can .be COM
PEELED to do SO against its will, is
wholly different question.
1t is doubtless true that under prop
er legislation a railroad company
could be compelled to erect grain ele-
vators of it's own, just as 1t may be
compelled to erect station houses,
freight ware houses, ETC., where
reasonable necessity therefor exists.
But the Ramsey bill contemplates
nothing of the kind. 1t contemplates
compelling the railroad company to
afford equal facilitles"-a glittering
generality which it would be difficult
to prove in court that is being vio-
lated anywhere in Nebraska today.
What are equal facilities?" Does
it mean that in a town where 500
farmers bring their grain to market
there may or shall be 500 grain ele-
vators? Assuredly not. Would one
elevator be enough? Probably; and
yet it might not. Under the Ramsey
bill who is to determine this ques-
ton? Apparently no one; probably
the court before whom is tried the
damage suit contemplated in the provi-
sions Of the second section. But that
would be case Of locking the stable
after the horse had been stolen.
| Who determines how many miles OF
railroad shall be built in Nebraska? :?
The courts? No. The owners of pri-
vate capital? Yes. Would it require
Ramsey bill to permit private capi-
talists to parallel the B. & M. from
Plattsmouth to Kearney? Hardly
There is a general law regarding rail-
roads, arming them with the right to
|
their favor, and they are built where
in the judgment of the private capi-
talists it will finally prove profitable
to build them.
Is there any law requiring rail-
road company to expend any given
amount Of money in constructing its
line? Search the statutes. The fact
is, that if this legislature had enacted
a law similar to the Minnesota ele.
vator law, the farmers associations
would have won asdecided victory, be-
cause that law recognizes a grain ele-
vator as a public necessity in the
transportation of grain-a connecting
link in the chain-and the state ex-
ercises eminent domain in favor of any
person who desires to build an eIe-
vator upon the railroad right of way
and is willing and able to pay a rea-
sonable compensation for the site tc
its private owner, the railroad COM
pany.
This is the correct theory. Nc
Eigh-handed order" requiring tht
railroad company to give" or "af
ford" equal facilities" amounts to {
pinch of snuff if enforcement of tha
order means the taking of the pri
vate property of the railroad com
pany without rendering due compen
sation.
However, let not the Farmers Co
operative Grain and Live Stock asso
citation (and company despair. Their,
may be way out-although it vii
, take a number of years in litigation t,
l determine it.
> Our supreme court, in the case O
, McLucas VS.. st. ]. & G. I. r. Co., hold
: that under the provisions of sectio
. 4, article H., of the constitution @
!, Nebraska, railroad constructed an
operated in this state is a PUBLI
= HIGHWAY" and that the ''geners
public has the same interest in tn
preservation and maintenance of raj
i roads as it has in the maintenance {
r. other highways" aud that therefor
; "the title to part of a railroad
Il right of way, while such road is bt
n ing operated as common carrie
i cannot be divested by adverse posse;
n sion"
l. Interpreting this in harmony wit
d the rules of governing highways ge,