Fort Worth gazette. [volume] (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1891-1898, 1893-02-14
.TOBE SHOT ON SIGH r
Is the Law Proposed Against
Rapists.
ANY TIME WITHIN SIXTY DAYS
==HHsH-HH
Any One May Shoot Down a Rapjal as He
Would a Rabd Dog
The Assignment Sill Reported Fwdrab!y.
Gwaynss Good Work Tor the Wheat Grow.
gCs TOO Truth Not Libol Except In
lmputng Want Of Chastity.
my TIME WITHIN SIXTY DAYS

Austin, Tex, Feb. l3 lSpecial) Sem
ntc Judiciary committee 40, . heard
tlnH afternoon the argument Of railroad
attorneys against AlcCumbs bill to
further define connecting lines of COM
mon carriers, their relationship to each
other and t1 those dealing with them,
or either of them and 90 prescribe rule
ut evidence us 90 such relationship. aud
tO further prescribe their duties and lid-
u,ltics The object OF the bill rs TO make
auy one col a series cot connecting lines
On a through bill of laiiug responsible
for any loss on damage 60 amy shipment,
aud substituting the company against
which recovery may Zoe had 10 the rights
of shippers There were present judge
Perkins OF Grreuvile, representing the
ST. Louis and Southwestern railroad; j.
W. Ivuy of Galveston, representing the
SANTA lee, and r. y. luNett of Houston,
rvprescutuE thc Huntington system of
roads, Rui,roud Commissioner fostpr
was also present assam Interested spec
tUtur,
Mr. Terry opencd the argument before
the committee and urged two objections
against the bill In the FIRST place the
plO, iu So tur as IL sought To
nuke one railroad responsible for the
neglect of Another, he Thought uucousu-
UuuuW. Then again the bill sought 10
regulate Interstate commerce and the
bon vongress The speaker thought the
responsibility for any loss could bee as.
uprJuiuHi hy "a law which COMPELLED one
connecting line Co take receipts from uu-
other which should he furnished to the
shippers Ito all not think that SUBJ
sututo OF the company tu the Shipprci
rights would be fun compensation FOR
jury IN Texas might rive verdict for
the shippers and n jury In another state
decide against the railroad company
substituted to The shippers rights.
X, n Loyeti then spoke against the
uill He considered IL Invalid ON consti.
iuuouul grounds, ana for the further
lult over which congress has exclusive
control, Interstate commerce, He argued
iurtuvr That a railroad company can't
De- compelled 10 take freight hoyond ia
own lines, aud IL caunot hc compelled To
give through tills OF lpdiuE The pas
SAGE OF such bin might plcmtc 10 do
away with through bills Of lodinc
though the speaker merely suggested tho
tdeA, MS 10 would he a serious matter 20
make the lcNas railroads responsible for
the uCglect Of the railroads OF the country
Judge Perkins argued that Il was 10 be
assumed that the committee did not IN
tend 20 legislate against the Texas rail
roads and Ia favor of those out of the
state. Texas cannot acquire control over
outside. oads, II 80 they could protect
themselves.
senator McComh asked the speaker
between whom was the contract os eyi-
denced by the bin of lndinN
Judge Perkins replied that q was a
contract between che shipper and each
of the connecting Hines and was controlled
hy the terms 0f the i'm OF ladiug Tho
road issuing che bill OF lnding was moroy
the special agent of the other roads ana
its authority y controlled by the bin 90
ading Speaking Tor the ST Louis ANA
Southwestern. 10 per cent Of tie
freight handled outside OF the state, and