The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1905-06-05
Railroads VIII Try to Destroy
Sidetrack Law.
PROVIDES for Furnishing EleYa-
tors With Sidetracks.
THE POWER.
Railroads Have Controlled Num-
ber of Elevators.
Grain Men Think Roads Can't
Afford to Oppose Law.

On the ground that the law is contra
~ to the fourteenth amendment to the
constitution Of the United States, the
railroads are preparing to fight the law
passed by the last legislature and now
in effect, compelling the railroads to
construct sidetracks to elevators and
-four mills which may be built within
a mile of any way station.
No state shall make or enforce any
law which shall abridge the privileges
or inamunities OF citizens of the United
States" is the provision of the four
teenth amendment with which it will be
contended the new sfdetrack law is in
conflict. It will be claimed that the law
interferes with the right of a railroad
corporation, which in the eyes Of the
law is a person, to contract with some
other person or corporation concerning
matters which are purely a matter of
/ contract.
/ Two laws Of very similar nature were
passed by the legislature. The first
was the one providing that sidetracks
/ should be built to the sites Of proposed
/ elevators and flour mills; the second,
passed to supplement the first, provided
that -four mills and elevators already
constructed should enjoy the same priv
/ ilege.
Though it may appeal to the nom
judicial mind as very fine distinction,
/ the railroad attorneys, it is understood,
have come to the conclusion that the
/ second law is all right and that the
/ first law is invalid. This is based on
| the proposition that the first law per-
tains exclusively to a contract, in
| which the railroad board is given the
| right to step in and dictate the TERMS
! provided the parties are unable to
agree. The second law, on the other
| hand, merely gives to the railroad com
/ 'Inissioners the right to order a side
track built to a mill or elevator already
In existence, on the theory that a mill
or elevator is a quasi public corpora
ton, and that the sidetrack would be
of benefit to the public at large
II Several cases are now pending before
the board of railroad commissioners in
volVing the validity Of the sidetraek
law, and it seems likely that one Of
these will be made a test, and taken in
to the courts with as little delay as pos
sible. The members of the board seem
to be of the opinion that it would be
possible to get up an agreed statement
of facts concerning the points at issue,
and that the whole matter can be ad-
judicated with small expense. 1t seems
likely that the board will proceed on
! the assumption that the new laws are
! valid and Will issue its order for the
| railroad to proceed with the construc-
tion of sidetracks under the law. The
/ failure Of the railroad company to do
| this would be followed by the usual
course OF procedure provided by law
/ Either the aggrieved party would bring
a nandamus action in the supreme
I court or the board itself could bring
such an action. The law gives such
cases the precedence over all others ex-
cept criminal proceedings.
1t was expected that this new law
would prove of immense benefit to the
| small Independent grain elevators, and
would encourage their establishment
! throughout the state. Heretofore 1t
has been possible for a railroad COM
pany to absolutely control the num-
Der of grain elevators which 1t would
/ do business with. By refusing to
build a sidetrack to the elevator and
by refusing to allow the building to
/ be placed on the right of way. the
company has controlled the siteation-
! 1t has made it expensive for the inde-
pendent elevator to handle its. grain,
! and practically put it out Of business
The new law gives the railroad COM
Danv the option of allowing a mill or
| elevator to locate on its right OF way,
and so avoid the necessity OF any side
track at all. Here again the railroads
| consider the law in conflict with the
/ fourteenth amendment, because it
saws that if the railroad and the ele-
yator are unabI to agree upon the
/ compensation for the site the board OF
railroad commissioners may step in al
! the request of either party and de-
| termine how much shall be paid rms
is a very Objectionable feature OF the
/ law from the stAlldPSl1it y 1..-
roads because it has been believed
in most cases the railroads would sell
d site on their right of way rather
than go to the expense of building a
sidetrack. It was the opinion Of the
| people who secured the passage OF the
/ law BY the legislature thSS the real ef-
/ feet Of the law would be to let the in-
dependent elevators get locations on
the railroad right of way.
/ One of the most prominent grain
men in the state said today, when in
/ formed of the probable fight Of the
railroad companies against the law
s'The railroads would, in my opinion
he verv wise to 90 slow with a fight Of
/ this sort. They can not afford to stir
up a hostile sentiment against them
| in a matter of this kind, for they
would be likely to suffer in. the end.
They would be wise, in my opinion, to
swallow this new law, even though Il
| might not be entirely agreeable"