The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1908-03-31
Union Pacific Attacks Side
track Regulations.
Denies Right of Railroad Board
to Enforce Order.
ROAD MEETS TROUBLE
Farmers Attempt to Force Road
to Terms at Culver.
Wanted Facilities for a Grain
Elevator.

1AS OI the hdnSdS
statute requiring the railroads to con-
struct sidetracks and spurs from their
lines of railroad to mills and elevators
near the railroad right of way when
ordered to do so upon notice from the
board of state railroad commissioners
has been attacked by the Union Pacific
railroad through a suit filed in the
United States circuit court. The at
torneys for the Union Pacific, Loomis,
Blair and Scandrett are bringing the
proceedings.
The law which is concerned is that
OF 1908, chapter 351, and the defendants
named in the suit are George W. Kan
avel, c. A. Ryker and F. J. Ryan, con-
stitut1ng the board of railroad commits
sioners; G. F. Grattan, attorney for
the board; F. s. Jackson, attorney
general for Kansas; F. D. Boyce, coun-
~ attorney of Ottawa county. and the
Culver Grain and Live Stock company
OF Culver, Ottawa county, Kansas. The
latter is a corporation. The railroads
claim that the statute is contrary to
the fourteenth amendment of the con-
stitution of the United States
The bill of complaint states that on
April 1, 1907, the Culver Grain and Live
stock association made written ap-
plication for an elevator site on the
right of way of the Union Pacific. An
lnvest1gatlon was instituted to decide
whether the site selected should be
granted. On May 9, 1907, the superip-
tendent of the Union Pacific received q
letter from the president of the associ-
alton stating that the association would
wait until the 18th of May for the de-
cision. On the 18th the railroad stated
that the site could be had but on the
following day wrote to the railroad
stating that the association had recon-
sidered It's request.
The association decided that it did
not care to build on the Union Pacific
right of way and then later the asso-
citation commenced the construction of
an elevator $50 feet north of the rail-
roads right Of way and sidetrack.
On August 26, 1919, the associat ton
through the state board of railroad
commissioners, commenced action
against the railroad company to COM
pei 1t to construct a side track from
the railroad right of way to the site
Of the new elevator. On March g
108 the board entered an order di-
recting the Union Pacific to extend
the Sidetrack or spur within sixty
days to the elevator in order that cars
might be loaded from the elevator
spout and to furnish sufficient side
track room for five cars west of the
grain spout.
Against Rule to Build Spurs.
The railroad company demurred al
the order of the board and said il
was against its regulations and it is
against the rules of the company to
construct switches that will connect
with the main road at one end only
That it would be impossible to con-
struct the spur as ordered without
making an abrupt curve which would
be dangerous. That to obviate these
faults the spur would have to be built
for a distance of 2,022 feet at a cost
of about s3,5S0.23 and the tearing
down of buildings at present located
on the companyS right of way. There
fore the road considers the order OF
the board as unjust and unreason-
able.
The law under which the order was
issued is attacked upon the grounds
that it authorizes the taking away OF
private property without the due pro-
cess of law.
The Union Pacific then takes the
advantage of the recent decision OF
the United States supreme court and
brings to bear the argument that the
penalties of the statute are so dras-
tic that no railroad can invoke the
| jurisdiction of any court to test its
validity except at the risk of the
confscation of its property. The same
| question that was carried into the
cases originating from Minnesota an6
North Carolina will in measure arise
| in the present case and it is evident
| that the bill of complaint will whiI
| the controversy in that direction. L
| is maintained that the law denies the
| railroad the equal protection of the
law and that the order of the boart
| is unreasonable, unjust, Oppressive
| and unlawful. The court is asked t.
have the order of the board set aside
and that the members of the board
and it's attorneys and agents be re
srained from enforcing the order, o.
| attempting to do SO, or from attempt
| ing to enforce the penalties prescribed
in the act for failure to obey the or
| der of the board involved in the re
! fusaI of the railroad to construct tn,
| spur in controversy. A temporary re
! straining order is asked for agains
the board to be in effect until the mer
its of the suit have been fully deter
| mined