Omaha daily bee., 1912-02-21
The RIght-of-way Question.

SILVER CREEK. Neb.. Feb. 1s.-To the
Editor Of The Bee: am in receipt Of
Brief in Re: Right-of-way Of the
Union Pacific Railroad Company" by
W. a. Prince OF Grand Island and T. J.
Mshoney Of Omaha, attorneys for the
Valley Farmers Protective association,
recently formed among right-of-way
farmers west Of Grand Island.
This brief appears to be general
statement OF the case OF the farmers in
their contest with the Union Pacific Rail-
road company over right Of way. The
purpose appears to be to enlist public
support for q right-of-way bill pending
before congress.
In limited space II is impossible to
enter into a general discussion Of this bill
and to review the brief as would like to
phasis, that that brief is full Of misstate-
ments and the bill itself is a dead
givs-away Of the farmers. II the bill had
been drafted at Union Pacific headquar-
tiers In Omaha Il would not well have
been put in letter shape to serve the
purpose Of the company.
Read the proposed hill carefully and
you will see that its passage would put
congress on record as holding TO the
soundness Of the proposition that the
Union Pacific is under the law entitled
to right-of-wsy OF 100 feet. A deelara-
ton 10 that effect by congress would
help you farmers a whole lot. wouldn't
It? And that Is what your attorneys are
trying to get for you. Can't you see that
you are being doube-erossed?
As everybody knows, when the Union
Pacific sold the odd numbered sections
II reserved only 90 feet as a rlght-of-
way, but at the same time II sold the
other 900 feet OF Its alleged right-of- way
, OF 100 feet. II is now claimed that under
a decision Of the supreme court the sale
OF the 900 feet was Illegal and congress
is asked to legalize the sale. But II con-
gress should do that II would be indirectly
saying that the company was entitled to
100 feet. For II that 800 feet was not a
part OF the right-of-way then the sale
was Internationally perfectly valid. aud
don't need any confirming. 1t would
necessarily follow that in the opinion Of
congress the company was entitled to 100
feet on the even numbered sections, the
very thing that we farmers have always
been denying True. the bill prohibits
diminishing the right-of-way to a less
width than 100 feet on each side Of the
track But that applies directly only to
the odd numbered sections and could
have no effect on the even numbered Sec
tons. Therefore. what good would II
be TO right-of-way farmers or even num-
bered sections?
The brief states that the supreme court
has recently held that congress may re-
wise It's Judgment as TO the necessary
width OF rlght-of-way. II so. why then
should not a bill have been prepared
limiting the company to fifty feet on
each side Of the track which, as a general
proposition. is all they have used and
all they need. That would give the farm.
ers all they have claimed land no morel
and would let the company sell fifty feet
more on each side on odd numbered sec
tons without in any way interfering
with the operation Of the road. As a
matter OF fact for years past have con-
sidered preparing such bill. but have
permitted myself TO be dissuaded by at.
torneys who, for some reason or other
almost invariably look at things from a
corporation view point. Such bin should
be at once prepared and introduced and
that daisy Of bill now pending before
congress fired into the junk bean.
m