The morning call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1878-1895, 1892-08-23
AN INJUNCTION ISSUED.
Texas Railroad Commissioners EniOined
Against Changing Rates.

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 companies and
granted Al injunction against the commits
sioners, restraining them from establishing
the proposed rates. These rates proposed
by the commissioners, the railroads claim.
would have compelled them TO run their
roads ct serious loss.
The decree reviews Texas railroad
building and the agitation leading to the
adoption of a constitutional amendment
authorizing the commission. Judge
Mccormick then says that no such
c0llusion between the complaining trust
companies and the railroads is shown as
would prejudice the rights OF the trust CON-
panies to file bills. However the trust
companies show an equitable interest in
the fair earnings OF the railroads; the ac-
tual ownership and possession of the secu-
rltles or the roads which are being injured
and threatened with destruction by the Rail-
road Commission acts. They show further
that the railroads are cOerced by the COM
mission and the directors cannot exercise
their judgment and discharge their duties
as they should and would but for this said
coercion.
railroads were built under extreme hard
ships, the opening up of new country and
having 10 wait long time for the returns;
also that the character of the soil is such a s
renders Ii extremely difficult to construct
and maintain sound roads, and that the
proper cost of the plants as they exist to-
day exceeds the amount of their bonded in
debtednesS. The earnings of these roads,,
says the court, "haye not been diverted to
any Improper uses and none of these rail-
fNrrlT fN~.11
Re. have ever paid dividend
Four of these roads have had to submit to
the process of reorganization under fore
closure proceedings, two of them a second
time. and the gulf road. which has so far
escaped this ordeal. now owes a floating
debt of upward of $4,000, ,000
With incOnSiderable exceptions, the Judge
says, the commission has reduced every tar
III which 1t has touched. Under The COM
mission rates, the Texas and Pacific derived
only enough revenue TO pay its operating
expenses, the cost of repairs and per cent
on $1,000 per mile. This road under such
tariff has lost over S212O00 in seven
months. The ST. Louis and Southwestern
road has not earned the necessary
operatlng expenses and has been COM
PEELED to borrow money to meet a deficit
In It's operating expenses and the interest
on lis mortgage obligations. The loss to the
international and Great NOr.hern road in
the few months il has been out Of the hands
OF receiver shows a greater ratio than
100000 per annum. The loss to the Gulf,
Colorado and Santa Fe road from these
commission tariffs aggregates S300000.
1he question or the reasOnableness of the
rates Is eminently one for judicial inyesti-
CATION. Under the commission's rulings
the roads are deprived of the lawful use of
their property without Que process of law
and In violation Of the constitution of the
United States, and in so far as they are de-
prlyed, while other persons are permitted
TO receive the profits on their invested cap
ital, the companies are deprived of equal
protection of the 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 a court of the highest
jurisdiction. the court said that this COM
mission would not meet the exigency of the
hour If the reasonableness Of its rates could
be inquired into before being enfo eed.
In conclusion, Judge Mccormick SAYS:
III clearly appears to me that everv pro-
vision OF this law which tends TO force
compliance With the rates of the commits
sion, whether they be reasonable or not, is
invalid"
Orders were therefore issued restraining
the commission from enforcing or trying to
enforce any tariffs heretofore issued, or from
Issuing any more tariffs. and enjoining all
persons, corporations or individuals from
suing the railroad company under the tariff
of the commission heretofore issued or here
after TO be issued, for any owe reharges or
penalty arising under the commissions law
and en- joining the railroad from keeping in
effect the tariffs heretofore issued, or put
ting into effect tariffs hereafter TO be issued.
The case Will be appealed 10 the United
States Supreme Court.