418 



KANSAS. 



pecially in Kansas. The Kansas Pacific Rail- 

 road Company took forcible possession of the 

 telegraph wires along the line in February. 

 Injunctions and counter-injunctions were taken 

 out, and in July the matter came up for adju- 

 dication before the United States Circuit Court 

 for the Kansas district, at Topeka, in the case 

 of the Western Union Telegraph Company . 

 the Union Pacific Railway Company, in equity, 

 the Kansas Pacific Railway Company, and the 

 American Union Telegraph Company. The 

 legal contest had been going on for six months 

 or so before the act of seizing the wires in 

 Kansas. The Western Union Company had 

 first attempted to enjoin the other company 

 from carrying wires along railroads east of the 

 Mississippi with which it had contracted for 

 the exclusive privilege. It claimed also the 

 exclusive right of way on the Kansas Pacific 

 under a contract. The lines along the Kansas 

 Pacific and Union Pacific railroads, it was 

 claimed, were built by the railroad companies, 

 and operated by employees of the roads for the 

 Western Union Company, which had contracted 

 with the first road for the monopoly of the 

 commercial business for twenty-five years, and 

 with the second was the assignee of a perpetual 

 lease of the telegraph rights. The American 

 Union made first a formal demand upon the 

 railroads to accept its business on the same 

 terms on which it performed that of the other 

 company, as required by its charter, to com- 

 ply with which demand the railroads took pos- 

 session of the wires. In the case of the Kansas 

 Pacific it was shown that the wires were erect- 

 ed by the telegraph company, and that two of 

 them were still its property. The Supreme 

 Court ordered the restoration of the lines to 

 the Western Union in a mandamus and injunc- 

 tion issued by Chief Justice Waite in April. 

 The Kansas Pacific Railroad Company then 

 proceeded to string separate wires for the use 

 of the American Union Company. WHien the 

 matter came before the Court upon its merits, 

 the contract upon which the Western Union 

 Company claimed the exclusive right of way, 

 was decided to be void on account of the im- 

 morality of one of the considerations, to wit, 

 that private messages of the officers of the rail- 

 road should be transmitted by the telegraph 

 company free of charge. An amended bill was 

 brought, in which the Western Union Com- 

 pany claimed the right of way by virtue of an 

 act of Congress, notwithstanding the vicious 

 clause in the contract. The act confers the 

 right to build and operate a line of telegraph 

 along the railroad route to the United States 

 Telegraph Company. The Court held that this 

 act gave the telegraph company the equitable 

 right claimed, which held good for its assignee 

 and was exclusive of the contract. On this 

 ground the injunction against the Pacific Rail- 

 road Company was continued in force. 



Four drive-well defense associations have 

 been formed to contest the validity of the 

 Green drive- well patent, issued in 1868, and 



reissued in 1871. These wells are in general 

 use in southern and southwestern Kansas, as 

 also in some other parts of the country ; and 

 the owners of the patent have been endeavor- 

 ing to collect five and ten dollar royalties on 

 them, having brought many hundred suits in 

 Kansas alone for this object. Congressman 

 Ryan presented to Congress a petition request- 

 ing that the Attorney-General be instructed 

 to bring a suit against the patentees, on the 

 grounds that the invention is not a patentable 

 novelty, and that if it were, the patent could 

 be voided because the patentee had waived his 

 rights by allowing more than two years to 

 elapse between the date of the invention and 

 the application for a patent. The defense as- 

 sociations expect to prove that the principle of 

 the drive well was known and described in 

 public prints seventy-five years ago, and that 

 these wells have been extensively used all over 

 the United Stages since 1840. 



The Attorney-General, Willard Davis, deliv- 

 ered an opinion that the registry law passed in 

 1879, requiring registration as an indispensable 

 condition of the right to vote, was in conflict 

 with the Constitution, since the constitutional 

 qualifications for voting can not be abridged by 

 law, which would be the case if a voter pos- 

 sessing the constitutional requirements were de- 

 prived of his vote through failure to register, 

 when prevented from so doing through sick- 

 ness, absence, nonage, or other cause. The 

 law, he thinks, would hold if an amendatory 

 clause were inserted, excepting electors who 

 were prevented involuntarily from voting ; and 

 a qualified elector would then work his own 

 disfranchisement if through negligence he failed 

 to comply with the statutory requirement. The 

 question has been brought before the Supreme 

 Court for adjudication. 



The County Commissioners, acting as a board 

 of canvassers, refused to declare the result of 

 the county election held in Harper County, in 

 November, 1879, on the ground that it was 

 fraudulent, 2,957 votes having been cast, when 

 there are not over 800 voters in the county. 

 The question of removing the county-seat from 

 Anthony to Harper was voted upon in this elec- 

 tion. An action was brought by the State, at the 

 instance of the county attorney, in the interests 

 of persons claiming to have been elected offi- 

 cers, and of the town of Harper to have the 

 Commissioners canvass the returns and declare 

 the result. The Court refused the application 

 for a mandamus on the ground that the elec- 

 tion was manifestly fraudulent. Another liti- 

 gated county- seat dispute was the case of Pratt 

 County, where some of the township clerks 

 failed to sign the returns, and the Commission- 

 ers refused to count them, leaving luka the 

 county- seat instead of Saratoga, and a manda- 

 mus was applied for to compel the canvassing 

 of the vote. 



An important constitutional point is to be 

 tested in the Supreme Court in a case brought 

 to determine the validity of the appropriation 



