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

| .nose mace for uncomnressed cotton or
.or cotton which may be hauled part of
sne way to Its destination uncompressed
anu ne other part OF the way in compress
e form, but the selection made by the
| supper OF compress or the price pa id
| Wy we shipper for COMPRISING either In
! person or through the railroad company
Is OF no legitimate concern to the com.
| mission unless 1t looks outside of the sub
ject OF fixing rates of freight to other
| abuses which may have grown up In COM
press and railroad practices, but which in
no wise effect the right of the commission
10 make freight and passenger tariffs.
| ana which the commission has not the
| power to correct
| In this connection counsel for the COM
| mission contend that II the plaintiff Is al
| lowed to haul cotton unaffected by the
rules 1T has adopted It will haul it un-
compressed to Houston which will re-
! quire greater labor and expense of trans
portation that would be incurred ii the
| cotton was compressed as near the origin
of the shipment as might be, whereby the
| revenues of the railroad companies will
| he reduced, which will affect the right Of
| the commission to make as low rates OF
freight as 1t otherwise might make for
the public interest. but which 1t could not
| make under this expensive practice Of the
| railroad company and still allow n rea-
| sonahle return on capital Invested, etc.
which the commission is bound to allow
under the constitution of the United
States as construed by the supreme court
of the United States.
| This proposition t. in my opinion, un-
| tenable. In Che first place. the assumn
ton that the power of the commission TO
make and enforce reasonable freight rates
can be restricted by reduction In the IN
| come of a railroad caused by carloss. i'm
| prudent, extravagant or corrupt manage
1 mont is "a authority
| that am aware Of. The decision of the
| supreme court OF the United States in the
| Texas commission case dlsaVowod an In
| tenton to adopt any such limitation upon
| Its power over freight rates. The court
| after disposinE of the question In that
case, which arose en- demurrer, whereby
| the allegations Of the Trust company of
actual investments, prudent, economical
| and honest management We're admitted,
| said
| at is unnecessary to decide and we do
! rot wish to be understood as laying down
| an absolute rule that in every case IA fail
ure to produce some profit To those who
| have Invested their money in the building
Of road is conclusive that the tariff is
urjusi and unreasonable. Ard yet justice
demands that every one should receive
some compensation for use of his money
or property, If II he possible without pre-
judice to the rights OF others. There may
be circumstances which would justify
such a tariff: there may have been eN-
travagance and needless expenditure OF
money; there may he waste In the man
agement of tn road; enormous salaries.
unjust Determinations as between IN
diVidual shippers resulting in general loss
The construction. may have been at
time when materiR! aud labor were at the
highest price, SO that the actual cost far
exceeds the present value. the road may
have been unwisely built In localities
whore there is not sufficient business TO
sustain a road. Doubtless. too. there are
many other matters affecting the rights
of the community in which the road is
built as well as the rights of those who
have built the road" Reagan VS. Farm
ers' Loan and Trust company. 15i United
States &c.
Under the statute OF this State rail-
road company assalling a tariff as un-
reasonably low would have the burden of
alleging and proving not only the value
OF the road and it's property being oper-
ated but the details of the actual man
agoment so that a court could decide
whether extravaganza and official favor
itism had prevented n tariff from afford
ing fair income or whether the tariff
rate was responsible for the deficit.
But again. If the authority is derived
from the supposed duty of the commits
sion to arrest expensive lahors of tho rail-
roads and to prevent II from wasting It's
earnings me power must DC a. ~ 0l' as
tiIe , uu'H ~. ,'.a,,o,,,i,,~ mo railroads
from, making this expensive Use of their
rolling stock BY the same process OF
reasoning usea 10 estp'hsn .'le PoM g, -
,',,,,,,t,,s for h,,,.t1,, aud renairiur ROLL
ing stock the fixing Of salaries of off
ciais, the wages OF labor as low as ianor
couin nc ecu'vu Iut '..' ..u w., ,V
10 M all these stations. would dcvolve
on the commission. 1t would be improper
to consider or attempt TO ueelde IN TINS
collIIt ,,.. NV a. .h"t,,a,. 6, w.,
-, i'''i. 20. H. ,i, ,.or,,,,,n,,toI ou,,,
.nua ~ ',I i ~ =, T., s,ef;nia,,t ,a ,a
:, 9l"p o o. ~, ,.,,,,,r ~, .,,,nr,,st,,,
~ ~ III. a,.,,o,,s,,,a ro,,'o nt'
III .',a,, ,,, ,,ol ~, ,,,uroaas VA,
/, oIl's .s, 80 ctat Il, ~ oo,,,,,is
80 :" ~
sum
,....., r.. .,,. ox,,,ie.,,,, f,,.,,,,. oo,
'o' wy
tend that the power 10 MAKE 'ne conn
press regulations in question is necos-
cow, IN erah,e n tn carry ont its mower