The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1911-11-02

TELLS A SAD STORY.

Suit for s1.50OO00 damages was .hIed
today by the Fowler Packing COM
pany against the Kaw valley drama sc
district of Wyandotte county. The pc
tlticn alleges the arbitrary cOnfiScatiOn
OF the packing cOmDany'S property in
the drainage district. It is one of the
largest suits ever filed in Kansas and
perhaps for "a greater smodnt than ans
damage suit III the history of the
state
Not only does the plaintiff company
allege that it's property was seized with
out a hearing or an appointment OF
q board CT Appraisers, but that the COM
mission far exceeded its rights in its
intrusion on the company's property,
and virtually put several branches OF
the packing plant out of commission
Back of it all is a story Of an
nocent looking little bill that crep-
through the last legislature, aroused
not the least suspicion and now seems
to have been framed expressly to block
the proceedings brought by the Fowler
interests Not until the. United States
supreme court recently en5oiDed the
enforcement of this little law, was the
packing company able to bring suit in
the federal courts in the district os
Kansax.
The property on which the Fowler
packing plant in Kansas City is To-
Gated is d portion of an original gov
eminent patent that was provided for
when the treaty between the United
states and the HNyandotte Indians was
drafted in 1912. Article II of that
treaty expressly provided that to SiiaS
Armstrong, a member of the tribe, was
TO be granted the selection of $40
acres of land situate west Of the Mis-
souri, river. Armstrong was to be free
in his own choosing. the article only |
eliminating former grants In 1856 |
Armstrong selected $40 acres at the |
mouth OF the KaW river and two years |
later he acquired all rights and privi- |
1egeS of q riparian owner and was priv |
IN T1iznnca n fEa sol of n
election In 1883 the original grant |
became the property of the Fowlers !
and on the land was erected properties !
now valued in the millions of dollars |
The Trouble Begins.
Not until February of this year did /
the troubles occur which has formed |
the basis for the big damage suit. The !
Kaw valley drainage district of Wyan-
dOtte county was organized in 1905 for
the purpose of improving the natural |
water courses of the kaw river and
preEent the persistent overflows Of the
stream. This company held power to
condemn land needed for conducting
the work, could condemn buildings and |
upon appraisennent of the property and
deposit of the damage claims with the
county treasurer could begin opera
tons
Everything seemed to move along
smoothly until the properties of the
Fowler company were reached. 1T
was known that the damages to this
company would amount to thousands
of dollars and probably result in sub
sequent legislation. 1t was near the
close of 1910 when the work on the
Fowler properties was outlined. Then
something happened which the Fowler
interests insist was a move to dimin-
ish their just claims and probably
cause them to lose much valuable
property
From Wyandotte county came Sena-
tor Milton, q mild hammered Demo- :
hi
but the cause of his constituents. !
Milton brought to Topeka many drain
age bills. He became the official
drainage advocate OF the session and
TREMENDOUSLY told of the needs of his
people.
Millions Little Bill. l
Sometime early in the session 4 bill :
preventing dissatisfied property own :
ers in drainage districts from filing
suits in the federal courts, was intro !
duced and seemed TO be a much need =
ed bit of legislation. It didn't seem to |
come from any immediate source and
mere was lots Of argument for its
enactment. Membe argued that by
keeping drainage fights out of the
federal courts. emergency cases would
be disposed of to the interest of the !
people and long delays would be elm
mated The bill passed and seemed to
be a perfectly good piece Of legisla
ton
Just about this time the drainage 1
Fowler property. Without the APP \
pointment of appraisers. the payment {
of damages or any of other actions
which the law provided the district | ;
must pursue, gangs of men began to | :,
seize the packing company-s property :
the petition recites. I
The drainage district took a strip of !
l. acres of land extended along the
entire river frontage OF the packing :
plant and began the tearing down of
buildings and excavations of land to :
the depth Of the river channel. 1t is |
charged that tracks. chutes lard
houses, sewers. tunnels and various I
properties of the packing company :
were RACED to the ground, rendered Z
useless or totally destroyed. The prop 1
critics of the company along the river q
front were virtually put out of COM 7
mission and never q dollar was depos-
TIED Tor damages, nor arrangem ents
made to protect the packing interests.
Tanks containing $50. geo barrels of
oil We're practically confiSoated and
such property taken and was in a | 7
salaole condition, We're disposed of by
the drainage board.
Then the Fowler lawyers began to
observe They prepared to file suits IL:
the LED raj coJrts and found that they i
were blocked 0y the new statute when G
said that drainage rows had no pla.e I
except in local courts. Suits We're then I
filed 10 .4niain the operation Of this law: =
AMI eventually these actions Went Ia
the United States supreme court. Here +
the packing company Won and the en- 5
Iorcerncat OF the new law was blocked r
Blocked a Tunnel. '
IN the meantime. the work of the
drainage board had progressed beau q
TRULY. They had blocked the use ~ I
the cOupany'S tunnel under u busy G
street and The packing company dreVe
their cattle. sheep and hogs through a
busy th5rOughfare and over two tracks
of the street railway. resulting in great )
loss an6 damage. An outlet from the r
coppany's properiy To ? bridge ieadiils Q