Fort Worth gazette. [volume] (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1891-1898, 1894-05-27
1
|TIE LAW IS Valid,
|7,,as Railroad Commission
Case Decided.
|Nc1ORY FOR THE STATE.
|,,,,ted States Supreme Court
Reverses Mccormick.
~ The Decision Heaches AUS
.,.-eovernor Hoss and Friends
c.,.,rate the victory-Gather-
ing Mt Governors Mansion.


,vaahinqton, May 2G,-In deciding
I. Texas railway commission cases
.a,y he supreme court not only set
p, sd A question of the greatest i'm
,,.nce 10 the people OF Texas. but
|..uyered an opion which will be inter-
.sius In number Of states wrestling
IN the great problem OF proper rail-
s,v regulation. While the opinion is
narded one and does not in fact
,ede several contested points. 1t up
1ss the general consdtutionality of
&. law and puts into operation the
..mnIssion. which has now been in
.r.tatIye for nearly two years. This
m no doubt be adjudged "a great vic
! n,y for Attorney Culberson,
sAo has conducted the cases from
hdr Inception and his success Will un-
5.rhtedly make him an easier path to
A. gubernatoriai chair.
In the Courtroom.
| ne supreme court was filed this
rrnIng with parties Interested In the
III A number of representatives and
If.nns resident here were present,
|.nong them Justice Shepard, Judge
ID Duncan of New York represented
In railroads. 1t was nearly o'clock
Before Mr.. Justice Brewer announced
lac decision In the International and
|osAt Northern case. Contrary to most
|fthe cases decided today, the decision
III the case was unanimous A number
III other cases involving the same ques-
|bon. In which the different railways OF
~ the Justice to be subject to the same
|.seree Only the case OF the Texas
and Pacific differed from the others in
|Mat II was q national corporation, but
way exempt it from tine operation OF
a rate fixing law In the states through
which It passed. The decision is very
long and was elaborate. II first re-
dtN the law section by section, almost
without comment; then 1t enters into
a history of the case That Is the In
Irrational and Great Northern suit.
Judge McCormicls's Decision.
No notice is taken Of the first decree
which Judge Mccormick granted in
Gamblers AT Dallas, The hearing and
dseislon Of the case al Austin in March
Of 1884 Is noted. The facts are cited
as to how the railway commission first
bean 10 prepare an answer and then
withdrew 1t and how the commission
shd the Encouragement for the pur-
psss Of the case, admitted the facts
Charged and appealed upon the law.
The Mccormick decision OF 1898 is
given In fun, Then Mr.. Justice Brewer
entered into the unanimous opinion Of
the court. He begins by saying the
questions In this case are Of great Inn
poriance and have been most ably and
sAiisiactoflly discussed by counsel for
The respective parties.
The Courts opinion.
We are met at the Threshold by
an objection that this in effect Is a
srlt against the state OF Texas brought
by citizen of another state and,
nerefore. under the eleventh amend
nehi Of the Constitution. is beyond the
lashdletlon OF the federal court. The
question as to when an action against
0nleers OF a state is to be treated as
an action against the state has been
OF late several times carefully consid-
sied by this court, especially in the
case Of Ayres. 1873 United States
ny by Mr.. Justice Matthews and in
he case OF Penoyer VS.. Mcc1nassny
H0' ualted States !. by Mr.. Justice La
mar cphe opinions are cited.
All that is within the scope OF this
eonlract need not be determined. OBJ
nously one Of the obligations assumed
!" the corporation was to construct
n'a TO operate railroad between the
einini named. and on the other hand
0ne obligation assumed by the state
was that 1t would not prevent the
e'mpany from so constructing ant
'perating the road.
The Chartered Rights.
y the charter in Its terms granted
70 NE corporation power to charge ant
e0'ieet definite sum per mile for TIT
transportation of persons and property
= would not be doubted that that ex
psss stipulation formed a part of tn,
SDnsaton of the state which It coul'
Wy repudiate. Whether In the absenc
an express stipulation of that char
'''er there is not implied in the gran
he right to construct and operat
~ grant Of a right to enable the com
R~hy 10 charge and collect such tol
VIII enable it to successfully operGt'
Ns road and return some profit I
.n'se who have invested their none,
me construction. is a question ne
sst determined. II is at least
,1ssuon which arises as TO the exten
= which that contract goes and one I
.neh the corporation has the right I
'uke the jurisdiction OF the court, an
me corporation, a citizen OF tn
a'e has the right to maintain sui
- u'e determination OF that questio
safiy citizen OF another state. VIII
4 under the authority OF the laws {
STATE Of Texas. become pecuniaril
sresied. and indeed the beneiici'
'rsr uf the property Of the corpori
80 ~. may invoke the Judgment OF IN
,s-sial courts as 10 .eh.fher The cor