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

Austin, Texas. December IA. - w. l..
Moody g. Co. of Galveston. having COM
planned to the railroad commission that
the Galveston Wharf company charges
them an exorbltant rate for moving cotton
over its tracks said commission this morn
ing took up the following questions for
considerations
/. Is the railway alleged to be owned
and controlled by the wharf company sub
ject to the jurisdiction of the commission.
.. If it be determined that said railway
is subject to the jurisdiction of the commits
sion, what rates should be hXed by the COM
mission for the transportation Of freiGhts
OF every description over said railway.
). Whether il said railway is subject
to the jurisdiction of the commission. the
rate on cotton complained OF by petitioners
is excessive, exorbitant and unjust as al
legged and If so. what would be a reasonable
rate for the service.
Messrs Hogg and Lovejoy appeared on
behalf OF plaintiffs and the defendants were
represented by 7. J. Ballinger.
Mr. bailinger entered a plea 10 the Ju-
special demurrer He argued that tue
Muart company's tracks constituted belt
line over which freight was delivered from
piont OF destination to private concerns
~ j. Moody ana company, he stated, were
| cotton factors and compress operators VINO
| we're paid as agents, and Therefore Coulu
make no complaint In this instance as the
| charge they objected 10 was IN the END
! raid by their principals. In addition Nil.
-. tod
ei-s jurisdiction is limited to railroads
running between any two points In the
| state. and that unless the commission IN
| tended to find a meaning in the Ian iol the
! Term point" which ioes not obtain IN
railroad parlance. IT could not assume
mower TO regulate the wharf company 5
| railway. II the wharf company owns any
railroad at all, IL owns belt llne, he salu'
| which is not subject to commission feguls-
tiun. If not a belt line II was not proper
ly pleaded before the commission he con
,,rlaI because IL was complained OF Is
being a belt line
mr Hog. for the plaintiffs maintained
| thar the wharf company is operating
railroad subject to commission regulations
and sought to establish jurisdiction VIA
regard thereto. for the commission by the
Nhar! company's charter, ny the s ei'e1 81
Inws and nv the commission law lie con
flnhn1
| -, ,'o,nts IN tho wharf companys line Inc
some as to any other railroad line s ana l",a
down the proposition that Inc ~ po nher.
between which railroad eould De chhs
| "a 10 run might be two given stree'a
within the corporate limits OF city o.; o.
ccttain wharves within said 4iinlts, ne
! rc7d The act authorizing the "hari ooin
r ~ ~ hIild tracks along certain desis-
mated route in the city OF Galveston anu ,ba, IA,
a our, ho T" ro'nplitd with their charter
w ~ Rallinger replied that he was no.
admitting anytLiag Therssp99 I Mr r nSs
asked what the wharf company i'N' "-A -
no. "It the wharf company has not comhliel
with It's charter" h. sGid; from ri, inc IN at,
conallion ,r Nc Assuming that II mad
c soTnegi with its charter though n, ne n l9
oer .4ds5d Ps ,hs apa oS
, ssil mae' between railroads, belt linot.
g ghIlsb% roads, ETC. he claimed INA,
,Se wharf company was operating any'h'hs