Wichita eagle. [volume] (Wichita, Kan.) 1886-1890, 1888-12-29
A COURT OPINION ON POOLING.

A COURT OPINION On POOLiNG.
AUSTIN, Tex, Dec, 2S-The case of the
Gulf, Colorado & Santa Fe Railway com
pany has been decided by Justice Gaines,
of the Texas supreme court, at Tyler, The
case was brought for the state by Attorney
General Hogg to restrain certain railroads
operating their roads in this state from
carrying out an agreement known as
pooling" which the attorney general
contended was a violation Of section 5,
article 10 of the constitution,
which provides that no railroad Or
manager of any railroad corporation shall
consolidate the stock. property or fran
chises of such orporation with or in any
way control any railroad corporation
owning or having under its control a
parallel or competing line. The supreme
court holds that the courts can take
judicial notice that the Gulf, Colorado
and Santa Fee road imginges with the
Houston to Dallas. The two roads are
parallel and competing lines which is
sufficient for the disposition of the case.
The main, if not the sole object of
the Texas Traffic association was to
goyeren rates OF transportation
so as to prevent competition
among the several parties to the contract
company or management from in any way
controlling another company owning a
competing line, so that if one is prohibited
and where one agrees with others, any one
of which owns or controls company line
by which it is subject to the control of a
body appointed by all parties to the con-
tract, such company places itself under
the control of the other to certain extent
in violation of the constitution, and in
what manner and extent is not material.
AS long rs n company remains IN the aSso-
iation the rates are controlled by COM
mittee, and it is not free to compete in
freghts with its associate companies.
1t is not clear but that defendants could
be enioined even without the constitution
al provision as being Il restraint of compe-
tition and contrary TO public policy. The
agreement affects both state and inter
state commerce, and the former might be
enjoined if the latter could not 1t may be
different if none of the associations owed
their existence to Texas laws. Then the
state would have power to interfere so far
AS relates to freight charges to aud
Several OF defendants chartered I'M
der the laws of Texas, are acting in yiO-
iation of the law in entering into this as
ISOLATION, and the association being illegal
as to some of them is illegal as TO all of
them. 1t might be that the state would
be pOWerleSs II ali inc HieLuOern ueIu CIldF-
tiers from other states or the United
States, as this would bring the matter
within the United States. 1t does not
follow from this, however, that they
would enjoy the immunity of
combining with state corpora
lions in contracts which Texas state laws
prohibit as this would enable them to set
at naught the limitations upon their
power The judgment of the lower court
is affirmed.
The Texas Traffic association has gone
out of existence and its members formed a
new association known as the Information
al. in which nineteen different roads in
Texas and Louisiana and the southwest
are represented. The decision, however, is
of Importance as a supreme court utter
ance.