| Show Decision Expected Monday In Moffat Tunnel Suit n Justices of ot the Colorado supreme court ourt Friday October 20 zd took under under un un- der Jer consideration all briefs and arguments ar ar- favoring and opposing the thelan plan lan of the Moffat tunnel commis commission ion commis-ion sion ilon to Issue In bonds for or the construction of the six-mile six ube through the continental divide Commission members now are arc an opinion by the high trl- trl In connection with the app appeal ul rom rom the District court at Golden several leveral weeks ago when Judge Samuel amuel W. W Johnson upheld the Validity validity validity va va- of ot the bonds and otherwise Sanctioned construction of or the tun- tun ael ad It was believed generally at atho he ho statehouse that an opinion would je le e. e handed down t the e first Monday In November If the high court Justices affirm the she lower court decision the tunnel commission will take immediate steps for tor the engraving and printing jf of the bonds Unless some nome seen jeen contingency arises construction construe construe- Ion tion of the giant project can be un- un before Christmas if the court favors the commis commis- sion Suit to restrain issuance of the bonds and stop the commission from proceeding further with the tunnel plans was filed several months ago by Mary L. L and Frederick FrederickA A A. A Metcalf on behalf If It themselves and others Subsequently the Wolf Brothers Land company and John Robertson Smith and Torrence White Sr ST John S. S Calkins Laura B. B Mingus and three thirty-three others intervened in the litigation As attorney for the original plaintiffs plaintiffs plaintiffs plain plain- tiffs to the proceedings Edwin H. H Park maintained in his his' arguments before the supreme court that the bore would reflect a general benefit to the public and would prove a aI direct benefit to the Denver Salt I Lake Lake- Moffat railroad railroad- u Montgomery general counsel counsel counsel coun coun- sel for the Moffat tunnel commIssion commission commission commis commIs- sion said the bore would be put to the same public use as is the St. St Louis bridge the Panama canal the Hudson tubes or the Brooklyn bridge in his oral arguments before beCore the tribunal He said the tunnel itself would open a vast empire of wealth in Northwestern Colorado to the entire nation that it would benefit the whole citizenry of Colorado and would be a special asset to the Moffat tunnel district and Denver This tunnel will not be put to a private use he declared and therefore the act creating the commission commission commission com com- mission and authorizing the construction construction construction con con- of the the- bore Is not unconstitutional r The fact that a railroad may Imay use the tunnel or a water supply company company company com com- pany or a power company may use the tunnel paying an amount commensurate with the value of the use contracted for Is not aid ald within the meaning of the constitution he continued The UThe law authorizing the tunnel construction provided that a tunnel shall hall be driven through the range to be used for a multiplicity of purposes purposes purposes pur pur- poses wit to transportation of automobiles automobiles automobiles auto auto- mobiles and other vehicles trans- trans of freight and passengers transmission of ot telephone and telegraph telegraph telegraph tele tele- graph messages and the transportation tion of ot water The tunnel Itself is no more a railroad than it Is a telegraph line or an irrigation ditch Mr Montgomery who was assisted assist assist- ed by Erskine Meyer assistant general general general gen gen- eral counsel for the Moffat tunnel commission declared that by construction construction construction con con- of the bore Denver will be placed on direct rail and highway transcontinental routes The supreme court chambers were filled fined with lawyers and others Interested interested interested inter Inter- ested In the litigation n |
