Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1888-12-24
SUPREME COURT.
Opinion in Full in One of the Most In
pOrtant Cases in the Texas Courts.
Hogg Against the Railways Composing
the Texas Pool.
Correspondence of the Gazette.

correspondence VI tLS GaLSltS.
TYLER, TEX. Dec. % Gulf Colorado
and Santa Fe Railway ct al. VS.. the state
of Texas; appeal from Travis. This suit
was brought in the name of the state by
railroad companies engaged in operating
lines within the state from carrying out
an agreement entered into by them Z,
which they committed to body of repre-
sentatives of the companies the power to
fix the rates for which freight should be
carried to or from points within the state.
The theory of the states case is that the
parties to the agreement are parallel
and competing lines, and that the asso-
citation formed by it is prohibited by sec
ton 5, article 10 of the constitution 4,
which provides that "no railroad
or managers of any railroad corporation
shall consolidate the stock, property or
franchises with or in any way
contract any railroad corporation own
ing, or having under its control,
parallel or competing line. -
The first assignment of error is that ''the
court erred in finding that many of the
railroad companies defendant, own and
cause, as defendants claim, there is no
such admission in their answers, nor is
there such an allegation in the state S
petition, except that defendants are
averred to be made parallel and Compel
ing lines by the action of said Texas
Traffic Association. - Under this assign
ment we will first consider the allegation
i'll the petition. The petition alleges the
authority by which the respec-
tive charters of the defendant
corporations were granted; and
defines the lines of railroad respectively
operated by them, and their charges,
'that the lines so owned and operated
by the defendants are the main trunk
lines and leading railways in Texas, and
so traverse the state as to touch and pen
citrate her commercial centers, and be-
come and are lawful competitors for the
country's traffic, concentrated in the
cities aforesaid - After alleging the
formation of an executive committee Of
the "Traffic Association, - by the agree
ment, the carrying out of which is
sought to be restrained, the pc
titiOn also AYERS "that each of
said executive committee, and each
of the employees of said association, is an
officer of each and all of the defendants
and are in common employed and
paid by them, and that each of said rail-
road companies is q competing line for
Texas traffic and trade - Also re-
ferring to the association formed by the
agreement, the petition charges, "that
said railway companies by their said con-
spiracy, contract, combination and CO.
partnership, have formed a consolidation
of parallel and competing lines, etc. -
The exceptions to the petition are upon
grounds that would have been
raised by general de-
murrer. There is no exception on
account Of vagueness or iEdirectness of
the allegations. In the absence of such
exceptions every reasonable intendment
must be INDUCED in favor of the suf1i-
cheney of the petition. See District
Court Rules II and Is, Al Texas-48 Tex
as, lO9. We think it sufficiently appears
from the allegations quoted above that
the defendant companies are alleged to
be owners and operators of parallel and
competing lines of railroad. But the
further question is presented whether
from the admissions in the pleadings and
facts of which the court could take judi
cial action, it was authorized to make
the finding complained of in
the first assignment of error.
The case was submitted to the court for
final disposition upon the petition, the
answers and the supporting atfidavits. The
answer of the Gulf, Colorado and Santa
Fe Railway formally admits all allega-
lions of the petition which are not therein
specifically denied. The ST. Louis, Ar
kansas and Texas Railway and the Fort
Worth and Denver Railway adopt the
answer of the Santa Fe Company. The
answers of these defendants do not deny
that the roads of the defendant COM
panies are parallel and competing lines.
Therefore the fact may be considered as
established as to them. On the other
hand, the other defendants in their
answers deny all the allegations of the
petition not specially admitted in such
answers; and we find in their
pleadings no admission that any
one of the railroads is parallel
to, or a competitor for traffic with any
other. Unless, therefore the court could
know judicially that two or more of the
roads which were operated by the men,
bers of the association were parallel or
competing lines, the finding was not
warranted against the last named Defend
ants. Whether two roads which inter-
sect each other at certain point are
competitors Tor 1relgnC or not, must ue-
pend upon variety of circumstances not
known to the court. But we must take
notice of the geography of the state and
at least of Ist navigable streams. 1t
is matter of history that i'm
portant lines of railroad once established,
have remained as fixed and as permanent
in their course as the rivers themselves.
They supercede in theEEain all the modes
of travel between tie points whieJethey
touch, and becomeSss well if not kEetter
known than anYSsother s geographical
feature of the eSSintry Thei8 l$eality
becomes "notogMas and Aklsphefble. ="
For instance sssaRs we AlonhtSfhat the;
Houston and%xas&e R3RKay ru9s
from Hopzfos paAs, I'D fSasstSse
Gulf, Col4sd5 ssSd SsassS RI Railways
touches witf7Nits lines the sama4Points?
Can we doubt that they run during a con-
siderable portion of their lines practically
parallel to each other, and that they
must necessarily compete for the traffic
lying between them? We think we must
take judicial notice that these two roads
are parallel and competing lines, and
this is sufficient so far rs the disposition
of their cases is concerned. We are of
opinion that the findings would have been
sufficient to support the judgment if it
had been that but two of the defendants