The Austin weekly statesman. (Austin, Tex.) 1883-1898, 1889-01-03

le supr ne Cot ,sustains At
torney- Genera Hogg.
"a abroad Pooling in fexas Must
Go-An Able o. litjn by
Justice Gal IS.
SUPREME con 2.

SUPREME COZ :.
John w. Stayton. Chief Justice Reuben r. Gaines
and A. 5. Walker Associa Justices; 5. D.
Reafes. Clerk.
'Gqlf, Colorado and Santa Fe Railway Cempaf y
1t al. We. the State Of Texas
This suit was brought in the name of the
state by the attorney ger eral to restrain
certain railroad companies engaged in
operating lines within Jhe state from
carrying out an agreement entered into
by them, by which they committed TO a
body OF representatives. of the
companies the power to fix the
rates fpr which freights should
be carried to OF from points within the
state. Tie thecJy of the states case is
that the{ parties to the agreen emit are
parallel and competing nes, and that the
association formed by it is prohibited by
section 5,article, 10, of the constitution,
which provides: That no railroad or
manager of any railroad co operation shall
consolidate the stock, pro perty or frap-
cNi5es o 81 uCu' cooperation with, or in al
way GOT "a eT rallrO@ corporat,
9IMpGg t,Ivilt under its control pa
q lei or .petiig line.
fHs q 1t hobs: First-lrhat the couas
Geo tskeI udicia notice that the Houston
All, TEXTS Genital road run from Hots-
| 10 TO dallas; tat the Gulf Colorado and
Sal1ta re touGe5 with Its lines the sama
poihts, and thu these two roads are pa,
allei and comptisg lines. This is su
| ficient SO far as the dis position of til
case is cOncerntl for the finding belo
would have beer sufficient tb support til
judgment if bu two of the defendant
were competiDgFith each o Their for tran
flo. II
SCeond-A Maling if not the sole OF.
Ject pf ohe Ie3as Pacific association is by
inc appointment a com mon COVERT
ing committee to fix rates of
transPortation SO as to prevent
oomHetltlon among the several parties tt
the contract. The section of the consti-
1utioa above cited prohibits any railroad
company, or the manegels of any such
company, from controlling in any way
anoher company owning a competing
line If one is prohibited from making
such a contract, two or more are prol
hib.Ied Where one company enters into
an agreement with Others, any ore OF
viii n owns or controls competing Lind
by which it subjects itself TO the govern
mtft Of body appointed by al! parties
to THE agreement, such company placesI.
ltsF under the control of thel,
otltr to definite extent, and acts
in violations of tho state constitu-l
ton This manner and extent of the
contFl are immaterial. The facts, that
unanimous vote of the comm ittee Is re-
quir9dto adopt any proposit Jon involving |
re7e1tuR; that the rates are subject to be !
changeA In a certain manner pointed out |
in the contRct that any member may
with1raw. uph giving ninety days notice,
and hat nOH enalty is prescribed for
violation ofthe articles, do not evoke
different con- uslon. So lobg, as a COM
pany remeis a member of the associa-
ton IL is ',ntr0lled as to rates by the
COT uitteel md is not FREQ, - "cp,patoI
its associates for treig at. 1t is not
but that defendants could be tn
d, even IN the absence of the constitu-
4 provision, as being i'm restraint of
8 .nRetitiOn and contrary to public pol
Ysy.
p Third-1he agreement, as understood,
concerns bath commerce witA5p the state
and commerce between tn Is State an
other states. The formeg might be en-
ioinea if the latter could notl 1t may be
that If none of the members owed their
existtnce to our laws, that thu state would
have no power to interfere With this con-
tractso far as it relates to chhrges upon
freight carried TO and between this and
other states Or. R. Co. vs. People, 118 U.
S., $50; but here the question'is different.
Several of tho defendants are char
tered under the laws of this state;
these are acting IA violation of the law in
entering into this association. The asso-
citation being illegal as to some of the de-
PENDANTS is illegal as to all. If all the
members heldcharters from other states
or the United States it may be that the
state would b powerless to interfere, be-,
cause of its bling matter within the ex-
elusive jurisdiction of the United States;
bat it does no follow that they would en-
Joy the immunity of entering into cen
tracts with OR own corporations which
are prohibited to the latter, and thus era
BILE them to st at naught the Limitations
upon their poVer. Affirmed, Opiniony