The Houston daily post. [volume] (Houston, Tex.) 1886-1903, 1896-02-04

press. and thus each IL left In Z nea Sure
without competition from those who are
placed at such disadvantage In buying II
| his territory
II each cotton buyer could buy at ali
| points and concentrate for COMPRISING At
| his own compress where ne has rcgv-
larry employed classifiers each would ho
an active competitor with all the others
and could AFFORD to pay as much any.
where as others would bid ana the pro.
| ducers would get the benefit of 10 OF Z
cent per pound which such economy In
! the expense of the buyers would enable
mem to pay and which they would pay
under such unrestricted competitive con-
ditions.
J, The congresses at Houston compress
Tor less charge than the rules OF the
commission prescribe, which the prod,icer
would get the bonent OF IL competition
was allowed between the presses in tho
interior and the Houston presses The
Houston congresses compress for 20
cents per bale without regard to the size
or the bales, whereas Interior presses
under the commission rules charge 10
cents per 100 pounds. As the average
weight of cotton bales exceeds 800 pounds
tho Houston congresses offer the cheaper
rate.
While some OF the positions taken nv
the plaintiff are unsound In law and
others are not supported by the evidence.
ments which have held the law imposed
on 1t In order to prove that tho rules in
question nre unreasonable and unjust to
the plaintiff. II has shown that they on
crate inturiously to It, that they operate
inluriously to producers aud shippers
along Its line and the weight of tho evil
dencc Is that they serve no public interest
| along tho line of the plaintiff road
The next question In order for consid-
Grafton Is the complaint that the COM
mission IS applying tho rules to inter-
state shipments II the commission Ia
attempting To apply its rates TO inter-
state shipments the plaintiff ls entitled
10 relief upon that ground.
In the case of The Daniel Bail va. tho
United states, the supreme court OF tho
United States said with reference to the
business of that vessel being Interstate
commerce.
she was employed az an instrument or
that commerce. for whenever n commodity
has begun TO move as an article OF trade
from one state to another, commerce In
that commodity between the States has
commenced. Tho fact that several differ
ent and independent agencies arc om-
ployod IN transporting the commodity,
some acting entirely IN one State and
some acting through two or more States,
docs In no respect aficct the character of
tho transaction" 90 Wall, b5S. I take this
MS correct dc1nition OF Interstate COM
merce for the purpose Of this case
Now. II Is not important In this case 70
determine the extent of the police power
of the State with reference to making Iocal
regulations OF railroad companies ENGAGED
IN interstate commerce, SO as to determine
whether the State might require the nay
ment In advance MS n part of freight
rate 10 another State or to a foreign port
the supposed charges of compress com
pancs. and require railroad companies to
stop in transit cotton which had become
Interstate commerce for the purpose OF
having II compressed. tx the density at
which 1t should be compressed (Which
might not agree with the rules OF tho
state II might enterl and pay tho com
press charges collected from shippers aa n
part of the freight. The imposition OF
such burdens on commodities which nave
become Interstate commerce " not sun
ported Ivy any authorities which have come
under my observation, because they are
outside Of tho local regulations incidentally
affecting interstate commerce witch arc
supported on the grounds of protecting the
health, personal safety. public morals or
conducting to general public convenience
within n state. 1t is sufficient. however,
for the purposes of this case To state that
the statute creating the commission not
only does not delegate to 1t any of tho
police powers which might he lawfully cx-
ercis"d by the state TO Incidentally affect
Interstate commerce, but that II shuts out
all efforts to imply such powers MS II part
of the authority OF the commission by
expressly restricting the powers of tho
commission by the declaration that this
act shah be construed To apply to and
auoct only the transportation of passen-
gers. freight and ears between points with
In this State" This n striotou applies az
well to the incidental powers implicitly
attached to express powers and to tho
powers implied MS necessary to carry out
express powers. as it does to tho express
powers conferred on the commission. This
restriction, therefore shuts Off from tho
commission the field of police powers
which might be leeitmately exercised by
the legislature. though they might Incl
1entally affect Interstate commerce. Tho
acts of the commission are not allowed
10 affect" anything but transportation be-
tween points within this State Al police.
regulations affecting Interstate commerce
are reserved by the legislature to be coii-
iroIlcd by other laws passed by It,
There Is difficulty however which
arises on this branch OF the piaintins
'asc as to the legality and sufficiency OF
hc evidence offered by II to prove that
he commission intends to apply the rules
n question To Interstate shipments.
'opy. duly certified by the secretary OF
he commission, from letter press copy
II u letter written by Judge Storey, one
II tho commissioners, TO raiiroud Of
iClal stating that the commission has
decided that the compress rules do np-
Ny to Interstate shipments. has been re-
aivod in evidence over the objections
# tho attorney general with a View to
iecding IN disposing of the case whether
his copy is admissible. The objections
# tho attorney general TO the admission
n evidence of this copy are ~ that the
minutes Of the proceedings Of the com
mission are the only legal evidence of
heir official acts. 90 that a statement
" n member OF the commission as TO
What It has done Is not admissible. CD
hat the original letter, the absence OF
which is not accounted for, Is III. best
violence Of the contents Of the letter and
o other evidence OF iis contents can be
eceived without proof OF the loss or de-
truction Of the original. There WAS proof
hat no note OF such ruling was made
rhe minutes Of the commission proceed
lgs kept by the secretary. Though these