Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1890-12-18

and duty OF the attorney general to protect tbs
interests of the public by inform ltion; and that
where in the case of injury to private interest II
was competent for an lndivi iual to ap ply for an
| injunc ion to restrain the comp INV from usin 1;
| those powers for p,rposes no. warranted oy the
creating it. it l. competent for tn. attorn
general. in case of injury to the plo.ic in crest
/ from SUCH cause. to ii e an inform itinn for in .
| junction. VIII it is to the interest OF the
| pu 1ic to prevent an illegal act such this
bein committed it is competent for the attor
| ney-generai to file in ormi.ion to res rain
| it, ee Drewry & smales (Eng.) Rep, vol. /.
p. l5i.l
| should ncver be. In that case he coronation
| Performed its fun tions 10 the publ cary
ing pa sengers and coal. bat it exceede It's cor
crate powers by the use of i funds Tor buyin
| and selling that artic e. 1t indeed &C m :
! petitor with c,al merchants. The attorney
| generals action to rain i; from the
abuse of its corporate franchises in using lis
fun Is for other tn m corpo -a-e purposes u
competitor in trade with business m.n.
| In the case at bar the railway company with
| ont debt or corporate demands, :utes DO ID :
! In violation OF the consttu ion an laws OF the
| state. They therefore void in the hands OF
anybody. By coilusion with the stockholders
| an others IL seeks TO have thes. bonds estaD-
| lished as fixed charge upon ATS property by
| decree OF the court. The attorney general en-
| tiers the state pa ty. claiming the RICH. to
prevent the abuse OF the corporate franchises in
| lh.l. way, contending that TO pay the enor nous
! jud sment sought 10 be recovered by reason of
| these bonds would invo,ve the exercise of the
corpora. e functions to the damage of the pub ic.
If therefore, the attorney-xenersl in
England could restrain a corporation from
the use OF its funds in the coal trade. why can
not the attorney general in Texas restrain a cor
poration from using it's corporate powers to
raise funds to pay debt it never owed? The
one " as rreven. ed from engaging in business
the injury OF the company's competitors in the
coal trade. Tne otner was to benefit no one ex
cept private parties who hold claims In express
violati OF the constitution and to the injury Of
the public.
This English case is a sound precedent. offered
for the one at bar And 1, IN connection with
Wis, 49, which sustains that officer in his
action to restrain railway companies OF that
state from excuses or abuses of their franchises
in violation Of public laws, is cited with much
confidence in support OF the states right Of
&C ion herein. By analoEy also the case of the
sra OF Texas W. the Gull Col Iraio aud anita
by this court. is a God precedent for this one.
In that action the state by injunction restrained
several railway companies from violating her
constitute no aud lLws-mainly what Is attempted
here to do.
In the famous Dartmouth college case the
princip was estabi he'd which is now yielded
to by all The courts that q charter is contract
between the government and The incorporators
who accept it. No doc rine has ever been re-
that one. Now then the sta:e alleges that it en-
tered into a contract with the International and
Great Northern railway company to the effect,
among other things. that the company would
not execute any NOR gage. issue any bonds o.
int ur any Indebtedness except for money paid
property or labor received and applied to the
construction. completion. equipment working
operation OF the lines OF raj way named in its
charter, and that it would carry the traffic OF the
country at a low rate. Il alleges miny obiiga-
tfons OF the company on the Performance Of
which It's part Of the contrac restet. Toe allie
cations were full Of the particulars in
which the conditions OF the contrac.
the judgment of the court shou i'd
be rendered establishing thoss bonds as fixed
charges u ION the road. II, therefore, the CHI ir-
ter Is contract entered into by the STATE as a
party 10 1t with the International and Grea:
Northern railroad company. the obligations
whereof were about to be violated by the CON-
pany. had not the state the right to enter its
own courts to prevent III II il could move T., do
SO by an independent action foi that purpose,
then what is in its way to the accomplishment
OF tn It end an i itsrvenor in q suit ready
pending! IL the contra t gave her RICH that
could be asserted in court, the e is no reason
case as q party to protect them.
Aside from her rights arising under q contract
the stat. Possesses higher privileges as a
ereign who alone can protect the public against
the abuses that TOW from corporate mismanage-
ment. She created ;hst railway company as q
public highway. 1t was made so by the consti-
luton. Its purpose was intended for the public
good as well - for private cain within the lin
itation, which necessarily surround all corpor-
a'e enterp ises OF public nature. Under the
constitution and the laws and by the charter the
state granted that railway company powers and
privileges beyond which it cou not go.
It is an elementary pfiuciI lie that the powers
OF . corporation organnei under lsgisiaiivs