The record-union., 1892-08-23
The Texas Commissioners Pro
posed Reductions Denied.
THE UNITED STATES COURT ISSUES
A RESTRAINING ORDER
The Commission Can Enforce No
Tariffs, and No Attention is to Be
Paid to Its Past Work-Railroads
Cannot Be Sued Under Tariffs
Previously Fixed by the Board.
Special to the REcoRD-UNIoN.

Special to the RECoRD-UNIoN.
NEW YORK, Aug. pa dispatch from
Dallas, Tex, says: UNITED States Judge
Mccormick, at Dallas, in decision in
the case of the Railroads against the
Texas Railroad Commissioners, decided
every point in favor of the railroad COM
panies and granted an injunction against
the Commissioners, restraining them
from establishing the proposed rates.
These rates proposed by the Commits
sioners, the railroads claim, would have
compelled them TO run their roads at a
serious loss.
The decree reviews Texas railroad
building, and the agitation leading to the
adoption of a constitutional amendment
authorizing the commission. Judge Nc
Cormick then says there is no such col
fusion between the complaining trust
companies and the railroads shown as
would prejudice the rights of the trust
companies To file bills. Moreover. the
trust companies show an equitable inter
est IN the fair earnings OF the railroads,
and the actual ownership and possession
of securities of roads which are being in
jured and threatened with destruction by
the Railroad Commissions acts. They
coerced by the commission, and the di
TectorS cannot exercise their judgment
and discharge their duties as they should
and would but for said coercion.
The court then goes on to show that
railroads were built under extreme hard
ships, opening up new country and bav-
ing to wait a long time for returns; also,
that the character of the soil is such as to
render it extremely difficult TO construct
and maintain such roads, and the proper
cost of plants as they exist to-day exceeds
the amount of its bonded Indebtedness.
The earnings of these roads, says the
court, have not been diverted to improper
uses, and none of these railroads except
the Gulf, Colorado and Santa Fe has ever
paid dividend. -Four of the roads have
had to submit to the process of reorgan-
lzation under foreclosure proceedings
TWO of them second ume-and the Gulf
road, which has so far escaped this ordeal,
now owes floating debt OF upwards OF
three million dollars.
W thin considerable exceptions the
Judge says the commission has reduced
every tariff which it touched. Under
the commission rates the Texas and Pa
cific derived only enough revenue to pay
operating expenses and the cost of re-
pairs and 5 per cent. on ST., 900 per mile.
This road under q tariff has lost over
S2l2, 600 in seven months. The ST. Louis
and Southwestern has not earned the
necessary operating expenses and has
been compelled to borrow money to meet
the deficit in operating expenses and in
terest on mortgage obligations. The loss
TO the international and Great Northern
in the few months it has been out of the
hands of a receiver shows a greater ratio
than 100000 per annum. The loss to the
Gulf Colorado and Santa Fe from these
commission tariffs aggregates 100000.
The question of the reasonableneSs of
rates is eminently question for judicial
Investigation. Under the commissions
ruling the reads are deprived of the lawful
use of property without due process of
law and in violation of the Constitution
of the United States, and in so far as they
are deprived, while other persons are
permitted 20 receive, the profits on their
invested capital the companies are de-
prived of equal protection of law.
Pointing TO the fact that the Interstate
Commerce Commission did not possess
or claim the power to enforce the rates
fixed by it except through the court of
highest jurisdiction, the court said that
this commission would not meet the ext
gency of the hour fthe reasonableness of
its rates could be inquired into before
being enforced. In conclusion Judge
Mccormick says: at clearly appears to
me that every provision of this law
which tends TO force compliance with the
rates of the commission, whether they be
reasonable or not, is invalid"
Orders were therefore issued restrain
ing the commission from enforcing or
trying to enforce any tariffs heretofore
issued, or from issuing any more tariffs
and from enjoining all persons, corpora
tions or individuals from suing the rail
road company under the tariff of the
commission heretofore issued, or here
after to be issued, for any overcharge or
penalty arising under the commission
law and enjoining the railroad from
keeping in effect tariffs heretofore issued,
or putting into effect tariffs hereinafter to
be issued.
The case will be appealed to the United
States Supreme Court.