The Austin weekly statesman. (Austin, Tex.) 1883-1898, 1888-06-28
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW.
First-After a careful reconsideration OF
the questions involved | adhere to the
conclusions of law announced on hearing
of the demurrers, which limit the right to
forfeiture to n failure TO maintain its road
on part of the respondent other remedies
! having been provided by the Legislature
for the other violations OF law charged
against it.
Second-As to the question left open
in those rulings; that is, the forfeiture OF
tho tax exem ption, conclude as follows:
Such exemption being peculiar
privilege enjoyed by the respondent as an
incident to ITS charter by special grant
from the state, and being in the nature of
corporate franchise, the state can, by an
information in the nature of a quo wai-
ranto, inq uire into and have determined
the right of respondent longer to enjoy it,
Counsel for the respondent contend in
an able argument that this exemption is
right conferred in compromise of de
mands and rights which the respondent
had against the state for the construction
of road builded before the exemption
now enjoyed was granted, and hence was
on a valid and completed consideration
entirely earned by respondent at the date
of its present charter, and that it cannot
now be taken away without disturbing
vested rights and violating the constitu-
tioDs of the United States and of this
state. It's true as they insist that there
had been at the date of the act of 1875
about 200 miles of road completed under
the act of 1870 on which, by the terms of
said act (1S70), respondent was entitled to
$4,000 per mile.
But it is further true that the Act of
1875 specifies the end to be obtained and
moving the state to grant her bounty,
which was "To afford cheap and necessary
| facilities for immigration into the state,
as we'll as speedy communication between
the northeastern and southwestern boun-
daries and with the eastern and northern
states and to meet the wants of the people
of this state in promoting the settlement
of vacant lands, the development of its
resources"
In contemplation of law, while the state
may have promised her bounty, III part
consideration of obligations resting upon
her from past transactions between her
and the respondent, the respondents, by
accepting it, Obligated itself to maintain
its road up to q standard which would en-
able it to accomplish the ends which it
knew the state had in view in granting its
bounty, and the maintenance of its road
up to that standard is essential to con-
tinued enjoyment of the exemption.
As understand the acts of 1870 and
1875, this first required the road to be
built and maintained up to the standard
of first class roads of the United States;
the second lowers this standard, so far as
the right to operate is involved, to the
common law rule of reasonable carrying
capacity and safety at reasonable rate of
speed, and as to the tax exemptions it re =
quires that the communication be speedy
across the entire state and such as to in
vite travel and induce immigration and Sc
cure the development of the state.
| frd: First-That in 1856 the Houston
Tap and Brazoria Railway company was
chartered by the state of Texas. 1t con
structed a road from Houston to Colum-
bia, distance of fifty miles, and then
passed into the hands of the Houston and
Great Northern Railroad company by
special act of the state.
That on October %, 1866, the charter Of
the Housto and Great Northern road was
|
authorizing the building of a railroad
from Houston northward to Red river
passing as near as practicable through
Montgomery, Huntsville, Crockett, Rusi
and Tyler
That on August g. 1870, the Legislature
chartered the International Railroad com
pany, which was to begin at a point or
Red river near Fulton, and cross the state
in southerly direction through Austin
and San Antonio TO near Laredo on thu
Rio Grande.
That in 1873 the International Railroad
company and the Houston and Grea
Northern company, by action of thel
mauagem ents, were consolidated, and thi
merging was recognized and ratified b,
the state in the act of March 10, 1876. Unde
. this arrangement the respondent acq uireC
' its present name, and dnder this las
. named act, March 10, 1879, it holds al
> the franchises and rights and propert
e formerly belonging to any of its com
n ponent roads, subject to the changes il
said charters, franchises, properties an,
=. rights made by the said act.
Second-That under this charter thu
: respondent now owns and operates abou
seven hundred and seventy.six (776) mile
of railroad in this state, which in keeping
up the track is worked in divisions a
follows: The Houston and Columbi
road, distance of fifty miles, on
division. From Hous Ton to point tire
miles north of WillIs,one division, and beini
a dist lnce OF about fifty miles.
From three miles north of Willis t,
Palestine, distance of 100 miles, on
division.
From Palestine to Longview, distanc
OF so miles, one division.
From Troupe to Mineola, distance o
A miles, one division.
From Taylor TO Palestine, a distance O
l46 miles, one division.
From Taylor 10 San Antonio. a distance
OF 1870 miles, one division; and
From San Antonio to Laredo, a distance
of 100 miles, one division.
Third That at the time of the institu
ton of this suit, December 81, 1887, tn
road taken in divisions above indicated
was in following conditions
l. From H )uston to Columbia the
road bed was in bad condition, being toe
low and uneven; the ties we're many o
them rotten; the rails were old iron o
English manufacture. Owing TO tn
infrequeDt use of the road and superio
quality of iron they were not badly worl
nor broken. though injured TO some ex
tent. The bridges were strong, but to,
| l,,- 20 The cnr,