The Waco evening news. [volume] (Waco, Tex.) 1891-1894, 1894-05-28
Sustained by the Supreme
Court.
Al Bpitome Of the Decision as Handed
Down on Saturday.

L
cases today the supreme court not
only settled question of the
greatest Importance to the people of
Texas, but delivered an opinion
which will be interesting in mum.
Der of states wrestling with the
great problem of proper railway
regulation. While the opinion is
guarded one and does not, in fact,
decide several contested points, it
upholds the general constitution
atty of the law and puts into opera.
.ion the commission, which has now
been imperative for nearly two
years.
This will no doubt be adjudged
great victory for Attorney General
Culberson, who has conducted the
cases from their inception.
The supreme court was filed this
morning with parties interested in
the suit. A number of representa-
tives and Texans resident here were
present, among them Mr.. Justice
Shepard. Judge r. Duncan, of
New York, represented the rail
roads.
1t was nearly o'clock before MIR.
Justice Brewer announced the de.
dision in the International and
Great Northern case. Contrary to
most of the cases decided today, the
decision was unanimous.
A number of other Gases involv-
ing the same question in which the
different railways of the state were
parties, were announced by the JUS
tice TO be subject to the same de.
cree.
Only the case of the Texas and
Pacific differs from the others in
that it was national corporation,
but it was held that this did not in
any way exempt it from the opera.
ton of rate.6xing law in the states
through which it passed.
The decision is very long and
very elaborate. 1t first recites the
law section by section, almost with.
out comment. Then it enters into
the history of the case. That in the
International and Great Northern
takes no notice of the first decree
which Judge Mccormick granted
in chamber at Dallas. The bearing
and decision of the case at Austin
in March, 1884, is noted. The
facts are cited as to how the rail.
way commissioners first began to
prepare an answer and then with
drew it, and how the commissioners
and the attorney general, for the
purposes of the case, admitted the
facts charged and appealed upon the
law.
The Mccormack decision of 1898
is given in full.
Then Mr.. Justice Brewer entered
into the unanimous opinion of the
court. He begins by saying the
questions in this case are of great
Importance and have been most ably
and satisfactorily discussed by coun.
sci for respective parties.
"We are met at the threshold by
the objection that this, in effect, is
suit against the state of Texas
brought by citizen of another state
and therefore under the eleventh
amendment Of the constitution is be.
You'd the jurisdiction of the federal
court. The question as to When an
action against officers of a state is to
be treated as an action against the
state has been of late several times
carefully considered by this court,
especially in the cases of in re
Ayres, l23 United States, 443, by
Mr. Justice Matthews, and in the
case of Penoyer vs.. McConnaughty,
lao United States, l, by Mr.. Jus.
tice Lamar.
Gail that is within the scope of
this contract need not be deter.
mined. Obviously one of the obli-
cations assumed by the corporation
was to construct and to operate
railroad between the termini named;
and, on the other hand, one obliga.
ton assumed by the state was that
it would not prevent the company
from so constructing and operating
The road. If the charter had in
terms granted to the corporation
nOwar In oh arOa and oollact a doE;p;to