The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1916-12-14

interstate to the remainder. and upon
the remainder deseends to those who claim
through the daughter, and not to his col
lateral kindred.
All the Justices concurring
Attest: D. A. VALENTINE
tSeal) Clerk Supreme Court.
No. 1915.
The Kaw Valley Drainage District of
Wyandotte County, Kansas Plaintiff
The Missouri Pacific Railway Company.
ct al, Defendants
original Proceeding in Mandamus.
questions of Fact and Law Determined
Final Judgment on necessity for total
destruction of the Defendants bridge
withheld pending further conference Of
the Observation-Disclosures Retained.
Syla Ths Kanl by the hsrs Goq " Dawson j.
been navigable stream in contemplation
of federal law.
2. Prior to the enactment of chapter 81
OF the Laws of 1864, the Kansas River was
a navigable stream In contemplation OF
kansas s.as, law, Wood VS.. Fowler, rs Kan.
by chapter 259 of the Laws of 1913. restored
Its legal status as to navigability, subject
to all rights which have arisen under valid
acts or grants by this state by the
federal government prior to the enactment
of chapter 259 of the Laws of 1913.
under the III Is mot fSd
no law shall contain more than one sub
1ect, Estate Const Art 2, Sec. 49,. The
rivers non navigabflity is correlated and
germane to the chief purpose of the act,
which was grant of power to railroads
TO bridge the principal streams of the state.
l. Except as governed by chapter 215 of
the Laws of 1905 and supplemental lepfs-
lat1on, grant of power to corporation to
construct and operate a railroad in Kansas
carries with 1t the right to bridge all
rivers along its right of way; but. whether
such rivers are navigable or -navigable,
they must be bridged so as not unduly to
Interfere with the flow of the stream. nor
to create or aggravate the danger of floods
obstruction of bridge piers and embapk-
ments In the channel.
5. The exclusive Jurisdiction over the
Kansas River In and near Kansas City,
vested in The Kaw Valley Drainage Dis
trict by chapter 215 of the Laws of 1905
tional binding of administrative and Judi
cial powers in one tribunal. All the rea-
sonable orders of the drainage district
board designed to aid in protecting the
city and district will be enforced by Judi
eial aid. but the reasonableness of the
for judicial review
g. When the state creates an agency to
serve its public needs and confers admin
1strat1ve powers upon 1t, just and rea-
sonable exercise of such powers is intended
and the power to make unreasonable, arbi-
tended anu Ril Of R3rSts ordeaS Is no. IN
14th Amendment u s. Constr
I. The state may create an agency to
protect a city or district against floods
which jeopardize life and property 1t may
clothe such agency with power to maintain
actions to enforce all its rules regulations
and orders reasonably designed to accom-
plish the purposes of its creation; and
The Kaw valley Drainage District thus
created may maintain mandamus proceed
ings to enforce its reasonable orders to
secure its territory against floods.
s. The security of the lives and homes
of the people is more important than in
terstate commerce and the latter must
yield to the former under the reserved
police power of the state.
9. A bridge which is an integral mart Of
an interstate railroad highway may be de-
molished and removed from a stream II it
constitutes snch an obstruction to cause
the river to overflow and imperil the lives
and inundate the homes of the people re-
siding nearby.
10. The general and exclusive control of
interstate commerce vested in Congress II
specifically modified by Congress Itself
1151. CHI 425, sections and io) in the
matter of bridges over navigable streams
located in a single state, and concurrent
state
IL. All the navigable portions of the Kan
sas River are located exclusively in Kansas.
H. When a proceeding in mandamus II
pending in a state court to compel the
removal of railroad bridge which tends
flood the neighborhood and imperii the
lives and homes of the people, later pro-
ceeding in federal court to foreclose a
mortgage on the railroad property does
not operate to abate the action in the
state court nor to Dust the Jurisdiction of
/ the latter.
13. The appointment of a receiver to man.
/ age and operate railroad as an instru-
men tally of interstate commerce does not
operate to abate prior pending action in
] a state court to require the removal OF a
bridge which is integral part of such
| railroad, where II is alleged that the bridge
| is public nuisance which imperils the
lives and homes of the people residing
near 1t.
| IA. Such receiver may be made a party
defendant, and subject to the provisions
| of the federal judicial code, (Sec. 60) he
| is bound by the judgment which may be
1 rendered in the state court.
L. An order of an administrative board
recurring the destruction of a bridge as n
continuing menace to life and property
through its tendency to obstruct the flow
of a river and to cause it to overflow-the
bridge having five piers in the channel
is not necessarily void because the mem
bers of the board, in their campaign for
the suffrages of the people affected by the
bridges capacity for mischief. committed
themselves to the proposition that. II elect
ed they would not tolerate any bridge
having more than two piers.
16 A hearing precedent to official action
by an administrative board Is not governed
by the rules of procedure followed in
courts of law. Informal hearings con-
situations and conferences may fiji the
requisite requirements, and the true test
of its sufficiency is the reasonableness of
the official action which Is taken pursuant
to such hearing
II. Where the federal government and
the state have concurrent Jurisdiction Of
the bridging of a stream as in cases whore