The Dallas daily herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1887, 1874-07-04
FROM AUSTIN.

lFrom the Houston Telegraph


International railroad company, In u
maslerly, exhaustive aud eloquent
speech,
A breach of contract 10y stenogra-
/ phcr engaged, prevents my furnishing
u full report, ns intended.
In opening, hc called attention 10
the magnitude ofiheintorests involved.
/ First The large sum OF money claimed
/ IN consideration of the contract, which
money If obtained, would be used 10
build II great international highway
over which wealth from Mexico, Japan
aud China would roll, 10 enrich the
safe. Sccond--The success or failure
of this great enterprise. Third-The
good fame OF Texas aud her future
! prosperity. Lastly, the supremacy Of
the law; for II had been asserted there
/ was u person Ia ,hc state above law,
| aud the attorney general In language
never before heard in the courts of
Texas had threatened n conflict be-
tween the judiciary aud the executive.
The writ of mnndnmus was said To be
cXtraIudicial and prer0gntive. Such II
was In It's English origin, but In Eng
| land IL has now lost that character,
aud America has never known prerog-
ntive. Here mandamus has always
been II writ of right. This position
was supported by history. Mr., Bell
here quoted authorities.
/ The jurisdiction Of the Travis district
court and the subordinaton of the cX-
ecutivo 10 the legislature and the laws
( were next argued, reference being
made to the constitution OF 1915 ana
| subsequent organic Instruments. The
| decision In the case of the Houston
Tap and Br02ora railroad vs.. Ran
dolph, which II will be remembered
was given when Roberts and Bell were
on the supreme bench, and which fig
ures extensively in the present ease for
/ the state, was examined. Bell claimed
| that the decision was grounded on
on iaultincss in the petition and should
not he used to enlbarrass the Interests
of justice. He related an incident,
which Is historically interesting, that
after the decision was given, Houston
remarked to him, that in future years
IL would be so used. lie did not regard
that decision rs authoritative beyond
its disposition of the ease, on the facts
before the court, only some expressions
In 1t are too broad. The statute regl-
lating the issue Of mandamus against
the heads of departments, could not be
restricted, only to the head of the land
Office Arguing the merits, Bell MAIN
tanned the existence of u genuine con-
tract between the company and the
state, and that the twelfth legislature
did not transcend its powers in grant
ing the subsidy. He quoted numerous
authorities in support of this view.
He believed that the Central railroad
had been more largely aided by the
state than the International. The
loan Of the school moneys to 1t in 1856,
and sixteen sections per mile of the
cream of the public lands, was more
valuable contribution than ten thous-
and dollars in bonds per mile.
He maintained that the net made no
appropriation. The chief justice ask
ed, as il necessary, under the law, Tor
the legislature to make an appropria-
ton, and is not the act complete in
itself; and could not the governor draw
money, after assessment and collection
by the comptroller, and pay il out MS
requiredHn Bell thought not. He
! thought the act made no appropriation,
but attempted to make provision for
| the payment of interest aud sinking
fund. 1t would be necessary for the leg
islature to make appropriations from
time to time, as the interest accrued.
lie argued that the legislature possess
ed the power todonate the public mon
eys to any private indidual by a two
thirds vote. Patriotic services, for in
stance, could be so rewarded.
In regard to the point, suggested by
Judge Ferris, viz: Does the charter au-
thorize the comptroller to exercise any
discretion, he argued that ii imposed
on the governor the duty of determin-
ing whether the company complied
with its contract in the construction of
the road, and that his judgment must
be final with other officers ms to coun-
tersigning bonds.
Referring TO the action in the late
session of the legislature he said il
seemed an invitation to the court to
decide upon the merits of this case. 1t
was an expression of its willingness to
pay the company if the twelfth legisla-
ture had not transcribed its powers
Whatever the court might think of the
question of jurisdiction, it was yet
open to them to pronounce on the
merits AS thelegislature had requested,
and that the high consideration OF
public interest and policy required the
court should do so. Adjourned.
SECOND DISPATCH.
In the supreme court, evening ses-
sion, Harris concluded the argument
for the state, and the case was submit
ted.
1t is evident, from certain remarks of
the chief justice this morning, that a
part of the court are inclined to re-
gard the Incorporating of the company
as conflicting with the constitutional
requirement, that no appropriation
shall be made for period exceeding
two years, except for educational pur-
poses. This objection would apply
equally to all acts for issuing bonds.
aud would invalidate the pensions to
the veterans and all state bonds, as
provision is mode in all the acts au-
thorizing them for interest aud sink
ing fund through long term of years.
The company's lawyers will file spe-
cial brief on this point tomorrow, ar
guing that IL would be impossibie to
create debt for more than two wears.
If provision for its payment, required
to be made by the constitution, Is to
be considered all appropriation.