The Austin weekly statesman. (Austin, Tex.) 1883-1898, 1892-08-25


deriving it is the bed rock of our CIVIL
ization, older and stronger than our
y written constitution, state or national,
but well expressed in both.
Its application to issue orders slml'
lar to those here made has been care
fully considered of late years by the
supreme court. AS stated IN the Drlel
of one of their counsel the TWO trust
companies, complainants, are trustees
} of various mortgages executed by the
several defendant railroad companies
to secure bonds issued by these com.
panies respectively. The individual
defendants are Reagan, Mclean and
E Foster who were appointed and
qualified as commissioners In
the manner prescribed in Sec
ton of the Texas Railroad
commission act. These defendants or
ganized the said commission on June
10, 1891, from which date they have
assumed to be and to act as the rail-
road commission of Texas and are eX-
ercsing and claiming TO exercise all
the powers and functions conferred, OF
purporting to be conferred, by the
said act upon the said railroad COM
mission. They have established and
undertaken to enforce in respect of all
the defendant railway companies sucn
rules and rates, and have made and
are enforcing other orders.
The relief prayed in these motions
is a temporary injunction, until the
hearing against the railroad company
from putting or continuing in effect
the tariff circulars or orders on the
commission and restraining the de-
PENDANT Culberson and all other per"
sons from instituting or causing to be
instituted suits contemplated by the
act for the enforcement OF any claims
arising out of its provision or out of
any tariffs, circulars and orders pre-
scribed by the commission from MAX
ing or delivering to the railway COM
panies any further tariffs, circulars or
orders. ...
The contentious of the defendants
Reagan, Mclean, Foster and Culber-
son, as far as deemed material to no.
tice: .... '... ...Er.
First-That the bills do not show
the right of the complanants to sue.
Second That the suits ale believed
to be collusive and preagreed as to the
defendants railway company.
Third-That as to these defendants
the suits are really against the state.
1t is apparent from the whole record
and the conduct of this hearing that
the controversy is net between the
complainants and the railways but
between the railroad and other de-
PENDANTS. The complainants here
show equitable int crest in the
fair earnings of the road,
they show actual ownership
and possession of the mortgage securi-
ties of the road, both of which they
allege are being irreparably injured
and threatened with destruction by
the defendants. They show that the
railways are willing to meet all their
obligations as mortgages in possession
but that said railways are coerced by
these defendants and with the rail-
road commission act and their direc-
tors cannot exercise their judgement
and discharge their duty as they
should and would but for said CO.
ercion. ..... ... .....
at was to meet such
cases that the national courts
were established. In them
parties may hope to escape the local
influence, which sometimes disturb
the evon flow of Justice David vs..
Gray, SO United States, 221)
AS to the contention that these are
suits against the state, il seems clear
to me that the latest decision of the
court settles that question against the
defendants.
We come now to consider: Have the
made out their case? |
Are the rates being enforced against
the railroads unreasonably low and |
Is their property being
aiken or threatened without due pro-
cess of law, or are they denied |
the equal protection Of the laws, and |
if SO what measure or relief, if any,
can this court now extend to the |
original and cross complainants.
From the sworn pleadings, the ex-
hibiUs, affidavits and unquestioned |
versant with the facts made during
the argument in open court on the
hearing of these motions, 1 draw my
conclusions of fact touching the mat
tiers now deemed material. On these
issues the compliments have
offered the affidavits of the
present or former chief Officers and
employees of the company's, witnesses
most conversant with the facts and
with regard to many of whom the
the attorney general in his
able oral argument was candid enough
and generous enough to say: II know
them, they are respe ,table gentle
men of high character who would not
and could not make false state
ment." That the construction and
up to the time when these
roads respectively opened for business,
was far short of the proper cost of
their plant as it exists today
That this proper cost of their plant as
it exists today exceeds in the case of
each of these railways the amount of
its bonded indebtedness. That these
roads could be duplicated only by 60
ing through similar process of seas
oning. l adopt from the brief of COM
plainants' counsel this statement,
which have found accurate: (Which |
in considerable ex captions not result
ing in increase of revenues the con :
has reduced every tariff which
it touched.'
The International and Great North
ern case: