The Houston daily post. [volume] (Houston, Tex.) 1886-1903, 1896-12-15

- Tvs quarter, Admitting Tor the sake |
OF argument. that the wharf company's
road was terminal line, although It could |
net DC one according to the terms of its |
quarter, 1t was subject to commission reg
uis.oh II could not be a belt line. he |
SAID because It gridironed the front OF the |
Wy instead OF encircling II.
mere is no constitutional inhibition pre- |
venting the chartering of railroads run |
ming within the corporate limits II a city |
ana II the statutes had read that railroad |
Nuuiu ne chartered to run between cities |
stations or towns, the whlr. conlHarr's
i'ne would probably be exempt from com
mission regulation. The wharf cnmp.iny's
road Is terminal line although not char
tered as such, ht claimed. and " the law
cans IL railroad 1t is railroad II but 400
.,Vl long. Referring to defen iants allCga-
'lon mat as agents or factors. :aintihs
could not complain of the wharf company's
trnckase charges. he said that there was
no'hlng IN the law to prevent an agent rom
complaining OF unjust "a .es on behalf of
MS customers. The act granting tho wharf
company its charter was passed ia $50 in
the exercise of power granted the efisla.
ture by the constitution Of 1865 10 author
lie the construction AMI operation of rail
roads, while not until 1879 was there an
act passed providing for the builiing OF
suburban and similar lines. At best the
wharf company's railroad charter is vague
on the subject of the mower conferred
therein to make rates, continued Mr.. Htrg,
OUT IL Is clean on the point Il subsection
| 10 me general railroad laws. II is tie
legislatures prerogatlve TO determine What
are reasonable rates, he argued and If the
commission took jurisdiction in this case,
ne was prepared to show the rates charged
MOODY by this wharf company are uurea-
| sonablo and discriminatory.
Mr. Ballnger dinercd from Mr.. Hogg
as to the definition of the term belt line
ana called attention to the fact that but
! few so called belt lines oncirclc he muf.ic-
| ipalites within the territory of which they
are operated lie denied that the wharf
/ company held railroad charter within the
| meaning Of the statute and gave as a reason
for such denial that II said hnriSr was
n railroad charter there would have been
no necessity for specifically granting along
herewith. as had been done the light of
eminent domain, and the right to connect
with intorsecting or adjacent lines, because
such rights accrue to railroad corporations
under the law. The wharf company's char
ter gave 1t the right of eminent domtin he
cause IT was not railroad charter
Asked by Judge Storey whether all ALL
way charters granted during the period IN
which the wharf company's char,or WAS
| granted, did not read As does The latter On
| the subject OF eminent domain and guthor-
! ity to make connections. Mr.. DallinEcr re
piled that he did not know but that there
| would have been no necessity COR specific
ally granting the wharf company rain cad
| powers which would have belonged to II
| II II had obtained railroad charter. Ii
| the wharf company has forfeited its char.
ter this was not the place to proceed against
| It, but II seemed to him that every al
! legation made by plaintiffs but tended to
bring the wharf companys road within the
definition Of a belt line.
Mr., Hosg retorted that the authority
granted the wharf company railroad to send
lis Tho limos Of connecting
mon carriers kunckcd out the belt line the
DRY. To his notion IL was such a belt line
the like of which existed nowhere else. II
belted the State and its commerce and no
pen, up Utica Of a Galveston could circum-
scribe its appetite for tribute. II Il has
power to send its cars over its connections.
it has the power to force said rome tons
to haul said cars for a nominal traClagc
charge. he added
Mr.. Ballinger said I've are so used TO
being called an octopus that We do not mind
1t anymore" aud. replying to a question
from Judge Storey, doubted that the wharf
company had authority under its chaiter
20 engage in through traffic. hut thought 1t
had power 10 tender cars to connecting lines
without participating in the through rite.
Tho commission then took the qdeslion
Of jurisdiction under advsomcnt and ad
iourned until 2:30 p. IN.
At O'Clock the commission once more
came to order and Judge Storey announced
that II was held that the Galveston Wharf
company was operating a rallr)ad and that
the commission would assume ju~'ndicton
over It, Judge Reagan dissented. giving two
reasons for doing. One vas that tht
section Of the Galveston Wharf company
act, which gives said company authority &c
/ send its cars over the lines OF connections
does not conform with the title OF said act
and is therefore null and void The other
was that the evident purpose Of the act
was TO confer authority to afford lines a
Galveston connection with the whArves Gnt
not to operate a railroad within the stat.
utory meaning. In other words, Judge Rca.
gan considers the wharf companys track
belt line over which the commission has M
. jurisdiction and over which II has never
assumed jurisdiction. not requiring IT ia
make reports as /, does other roads. IL
) his mind the wharf company was sImpl,
granted a charter by act OF legislature e
+ provide the means OF moving freight fro n
shipside to railroads He docs not class
il as a terminal line. his definition of suci
being lines constructed merely foe the rur-
pose Of aifording terminal facilities In
his opinion plaintiffs remedy lies with the
courts.
Judge Storey stated that he aud Juds,
Stedman would write out and file thell
opinion within the next few days.
Mr.. Hog asked Judge Reagan II he helt
the section in the Wharf company rallroat
company the power to send It's cars ovei
connecting lines was also null and voit
in so far as 1t allowed the Wharf compan,
l TO make and collect charges for such rail
road service as 1t performs
Judge Reagan replied that he did no
, rely 80 much upon the unconslitut onalit a
Of the section referred TO as he did upoi
, the general purpose Of the act as expressed
in the ttla which was to confer Guthorit,
to operate a line connecting che wharyoi
with the railroads terminating at Calves,
ton.
Tho commission having assumed !urs
dictlon over the Wharf company's railroad
. he quest on arose as 10 whether II /
undertook to regulate rates therefor tn
other reads terminating at Galveston
: should not be heard in the matter az the!
must necessarily be Interested therein
y nefe ndants objected to mixing the othe
lines up in the controversy and asked iuI
postponement Of The hearing until to
morrow to enable them to secure the at
tendance Of certain witnesses they hat
summoned.