The Guthrie daily leader. [volume] (Guthrie, Okla.) 1893-1996, 1911-03-02
SECOND ANNUAL REPORT OF
THE CORPORATION COMMISSION
CONTINUED from Page

spoke as follows:
n far the law gives corporation rights privileges
against the land for the construction and maintenance
railway lines the right and privileges Of public nature and
enforceable against the land because Of that
K rights as against the corporation an adequate crossing
the usual sense contacua The obligation of the corpoaon to
make such crossings primarily the public resulting from
acceptance OF its franchise may nure under legal rules
benefit Of the land owner but not such that the public
dvested of right interest therein If such right
OF the grant to the corporation and that IN respect to individual
rights arising out of the transactions Of the public with the corpora
ton is still right that the law quitaby administered will ecog
nze 1t the public IN urtherance OF its general interests A.
landowner You must yield right Of way your land
corporation for railway purposes but condition of this requirement
that adequate of crossing railway shall preserved
YOU harmony with equity and good government
public while compelling to observe the Of the grant favor
of the corporation should preserve and exercise right to compel the
the public whereby the individual rights Of pertaining expressly
the grant be preserved Let view the situation in the light
Of the facts this The defendant company has accepted its
franchise and constructed its road the land of Mr. Cutler The
Of the land pasture requires that large amount Of stock
shall this road twice day Mr. Cutler is entitled to ade
quae crossing which the company by its demurrer admits that has
not given him. We Of the opinion that the public has such right
indeed should not compel the corporation to observe its under
taking The contention in behalf of the public interest in the
ing somewhat aided by the fact that the crossing for the passage
of stock over the track affects the public safety the operation Of
trains
So we conclude hold the Corporation Commission had
jurisdiction Of this and that committed in denying
plaintiff in errors notion
This conclusion reached brings us now 10 the question Of whether
the finding determination by Commission
when weighed by the evdne brought considered with the pre-
sumption which accompanies it. that Shall be regarded prma
ac just reasonable and correct" (Scc 22 Art Of Constr
be sustained The undispued testimony reference the land
crossed by the railway that complainant owns the 5 r Of Sec
20 Twp M 6 II that the railway and operates line
Of road upon gtofway feet wide running north and south
through said land and the middle thereof That comflanan
house is situated about half way north and south the line
South Of his house and east Of the railroad an alfalfa field which
divided by fence from that portion OF his land lying east OF the
railroad and north Of his house The place selected by complainant
crossing almost due Of his house. and north of his
alfalfa field The company comedies that complainant is entitled g
crossing but contends that the should be placed either about
80 rods north 80 rods south of the point designated by the land
owner The contenon for point practically
doned however before the Commission this
has finally narrowed itself down selection between the
south point and the point prayed for The railway company contends
that should be required place crossing the place desired
by complainant account Of that place and also Slight
the track, which taken connection with the timber and
wood growth would prevent its engineers and train operators from
seeing tle complainant or ms stock wnen usl the erossg ana
thereby danger Of accident to all parties would be increased while
il conendcd that should the crossing BE made the place ug
gesed by the railway company the engineers OF IN approaching
from the south would be able observe any parties using the
crossing On the part OF complainant It was urged that place
was substantially as dangerous and as tree from danger as the other
On this point the Commission found that the crossings
similarly situated that the Commission could difference between
them from the standpoint Of danger ne operation OF trains TO
the travelling public The complainant testified that the
ing placed the south point he would be compelled open
his gate through alfalfa where intended to have
from 50 hogs and THAI by of being compelled open
would uoube compel
him to travel 20 rods south and back the number Of times he went
each day That when he cutvatng his would
take about hours time each day longer than by the other
The witnesses examined the complainant and officials of
shown that number Of passenger trains passed this point daily
and that OF them speed high from fifty seventy
five miles per hour To minds give the claims these parties
due weight requires consider the question of danger
us that if party approaching the crossing heard either
place an he could stop and prevent accident while
going at the rate Of speed mentioned much less
speed when close enough append danger and discover there
going be collision would be close stop and thereby
prevent it. With the wood growth cleared away appears
from the photographs introduced complainant ought be able
approaching tan for than quarter Of mile from
point he selects and this ought to be far enough all parties
Unless therefore, something practical can be accomplished by denying
the landowner the accommodation which he seeks his convenience
ought be usered The landowner has control Of place
of location Of line Of railway 1t buideth where e and when
his farm and he granted crossing it. does
reasonable that his convenience other things the danger
being equal approximately should be weghty
in determining as location?
We have fully considered the claim OF the company
with this matter and the evidence support thereof but minds
the not Sufficient to the testimony of the
pnan the undputed matters shown BY the physical facts and
the presumption attending the order of the Commission in this
This being true the same accordingly affirmed.
Kane, c. f. Turner, Williams and Hayes, j., CONCUR
COMPLAINT NO 2Io.