The Houston daily post. [volume] (Houston, Tex.) 1886-1903, 1896-12-05

| PENALTY prescribed In said subdivision ta)
OF said section 10 Of said act.
| T. That By reason Of tho refusal OF re-
spondent to refund to the realtors. George
H. McF adden & Brothers. the transpor:a-
ticn charges for localirg into Bowie for
concentration. on that portion which orig
mated on respondents line Of railway In
Texas. OF the lots OF cotton OF 100 balfs
each, rendered to II by said REALTORS ut
| Bowie. Texas. on the 2ith. the Goth and
the 27th days, respectively Of ocob,r
| 1876, as found and shown by finding II
above. ard by reason Of the rtfunding to
other persons OF the transportation charges
| for localing into Bowie for concentration
Of cotton rendered by other persons as
! found and shown by finding 2S above, e
respondent was gully Of unjrst d crimini-
ton. consisting OF the wllful violation by
! re respondent Of that portion of section IL
| IL the act OF the legislature the sac
oil Texas OF April 3. 1891, creating the
| rpilroad commission of Texas, and dsEn-
ing its powers and duties. which makes 1t
unjust discrimination fer any railroad
company subject TO said act to directly Or
| Indirectly or by any special rate, rebat,
| or drawback or any other device to charge,
demand, collect or receive from any per-
son. firm or corporation greater o. less
| compensation for any service rendered or
to be rendered by 1t than 1t charges, de-
| mards, collects or receives from any other
I
contemporaneous service, since by said
conduct OF respondent, stated In said fiai-
irgs 81 and 2S above. II charged and de-
mandod from the REALTORS. George II. Nc
Fadden g. Brothers a greater rate for the
transportation Of Gotten in bales oyiginat-
ing at stations on RESPONDENTS line In
Texas and destined to Galveston as Its
ultimate Texas destination from points OF
origin to Galveston, said cotton having
been originally billed to Bowie and con-
centratCd at the Independent compress.
than it charged and demanded Of other
persons, whose cotton was originally billed
at Bowie and concentrated at the Bowie
compress for n like and contemp0Taneous
service. the rate charged and d manded by
respondent from said REALTORS being 81
cents per hundred pounds from Bowie TO
Galveston plus the local rate for the dis
tancc transported according to the COM
missions cotton terim CONNOLLY tariT
No. ]. ~ effective July Is. 1891 from
initial point to Bowie, as against 65 cents
per hundred pounds charged and demand
ed Of other persons from Bowie to Calves
ton, after refunding to such other per-
sons tie entire charge for localing tie
cotton into Bowie for concentration. aul
since by refusing to refund the locating
charge to said REALTORS end Iefunding it
10 other persons the same was used as a
device for charging and demanding great
er freight rate from origin to Galveston
than was charged and demanded of other
persons, and that by such willful VIC alton
Of the portion OF said section 10. in this
conclusion found to have been violated
respondent incurred liability fer the PEN
atty therein prescribed.
r That each of said violations of law
found in conclusions 9. 3 aud 4 above. con-
stjtutes a violation of sub division fourth
Of section of COMMODITY tariff No. LA
on cotton. promulgated by the railroad
10 1898. which sub division fourth con
tains tho rules and regulations respecting
The concentration nj cotton hut inasmuch
as the only proyision for recovering a
reralty FIR the viola, ion Of a rule and regu
lation of tho commission is found in TINT
part Of section Is of said act of Aprii 3.
iSg1 which prescribes a penalty for the
failure or refusal Of a railroad company to
perform any duty enioinel upon IL for
which Inv said act n nenalty is not FRO
y,ded and inasrnuch as a renaltv is pro-
yided hy tho portions of ssctio, il of said
act above referred TO for the acts and omis-
slons Of which in the foregoing conclu-
sions respondent has been adindged guilty
aud inasmuch therefore as the portion OF
section is Of said act referred to can not
be invoked against RESPONDENT the com
mission Is of the oniuion for violating said
rules and reetilaiious independently of
The DETERMINATIONS involved. no penalty is
r,coyernLIe
6. THAT here is no sufficient evidence to
warrant any finding against rcspo,ient
for violating any law of the state Of Texas.
or any rule or regulation of the commits
sion far which p pcnaIty in the name of
tho state is coIlectuble in resrect to tic
coniniainnrts Irelix II Bath G. Co. Birrc.
lcofbes & GO. and Marin. Wise G. FitzhugD.
or any Of them. the most mat is shown as
regards them being that respondent has
refused to doiiver IN Their rem, cs ntative
81 powio certain cotton Iocalcd into Bowie
and concentrated at The De~in compress
In his concIusion the commission is not
unrirlful that ns against respondent the
nresumntion ~ the existence Of facts ne
r,,I,orIv within IN. ,nowI, dee of resuond.
ON, nould nc orfac,inp resno,dcrt s,,n.
rlv the omission Of nroof bu, tbcre helm,
ro,tor. With !, devoIv,s ,non said re-
Intcre reIiv n R,th G 70 pi-go T,-h,s
G "a s,d Martin yyiso G. E,,,zh,1yh to as
tahlish hv a~,,c Kind ~ evidence direc.
nnt established nv any kind of eviacn. q
such matters not being pcculilrly within