The Houston daily post. [volume] (Houston, Tex.) 1886-1903, 1897-01-29
Supreme Court Decides the Famous
Compress Case.
SYNOPSIS OF THE COURTS DECISION
Comprcsscs Would Come Under
''Rewulating Abuses" Clause.


tcrnal Improvements TO urge an unfavorable
report on l.ogaus bill to empower the rail-
road commission to adopt and enforce rules
and regulations to govern the compression
of cotton for shipment and all necessary
rules and regulations for tho preparation
OF wool. hides aud other property for ship-
mont over the railroads OF this state, a.
anticipated In these dispatches Thu. morn
Ing. However. the supreme court today. In
the case OF the Houston and Texas Central
VS.. the railroad commission OF Texas. hand
ed down an opinion sustaining the commits
sion In its attempt to regulate compressage.
which settles the matter In 80 far as that
particular subject Ia concerned and action
on the bill was deferred until the opinion
| referred to can be studied ana Its reach
| figured out.
The following is synopsis OF said opn-
lon delivered in answer to questions certi-
ned by the court Ut ciyil appeals in the
| case above referred to:
'Suestion--Did the railroad commission Of
| Texas have jurisdiction to adopt and en-
force Its rules regulating cotton COM
| presses?
J II Is contcnded that the laws which ar
/
mands the legislature to pass. relate solely
| to freight and passenger tariffs II this
he n correct Interpretation Of tho language
| OF the constitution We think II doubtful
whether the authority 10 make regulations
| FOR COMPRISING cotton could he derived
! from II. Hut We believe that the intention
| embodied In section Of article 10 Of tho
constitution Is fairly expressed by the fol-
| lowing analysis of its provisions. The legs-
ln'ure shall pass laws to regulate passenger
tariffs on the different railroads In this
| state. ctc The legislature shall pass laws
| to correct abuses on the different railroads
| in this state, etc. The legislature shall pass
| laws to prevent unjust discrimination and
| cNtort0n In freight rates and passenger
| tarlns on the different railroads In this
| state. etc. Has the legislature, In pursu-
| ance OF this constitutional authority. con-
forred upon the commission the power and
Z! authority to mnfo regulations tn govern
| the comprossing OF cotton for shipment?
| We hold that the power conferred by tho
| legislature upon the commission ITO COR
| rect abuses" carries with II Jurisdiction to
| correct other abuses than those which may
! be corrected with freight and passenger
| tariffs The question then arises. what
abuses can the commission correct? We
think Tint II pi1st he some abuse which has
| been defined by the law. aud that the COM
mission would not. by this power. be au-
thorized to enact a law defining what Ii
an abuse or n disregard OF duty on the part
az railroad corporation. The legislature,
In article ibTi. subdivision l. has defined
certain acts AZ nm abuse on the part OF tho
rallroad companies under which the com
miesion would have power 10 adopt the reg
uations In question: therefore. the FIRST
question certified IL answered In the af-
| iirinatiye.
Question III the commission has the
power TO adopt and enforce such rules, has
any court the power and Jurisdiction to re-
AZ. H.. tt Ion la,
premises so as to determine whether such
rules and regulations are reasonable. fair
| and just or otherwise in the absence of
nny plea Of proof that they are conlisca-
| tory?
We answer: In actions Of this character
The courts VIII determine the question OF
the roasonabonoss and Justice of any mat
ter by the same rules ms II II were an Issue
In other classes OF suits except ms to tho
conclusive character Of the evidences
The opinion vs. by Justice Brown, and re-
verses Judge Morris OF the Fifty third dis
trlct court.
The case referred TO Ia mn action brought
by the Houston and Texas Central Railway
company against the Texas State railroad
commission. denying the right Of the COM
mission to regulate the conipresslng OF cot
ton upon it's line of railroad. The railroad
company won In the lower courts. and tho
commission. pending ilnai decision IN ina
case. suspended It's compress regulations AZ
| TO the Houston and Texas Central. although
still enforcing them to all other rail-
| roads In Texas. II was, OF course, expected
that In the event the Central won the case
In the court OF last resort the commission
would suspend It's regulations M to all
lines within the State. But the decision OK
the supreme court has Just the opposite ef-
| feet md unless the case should be further
appealed. the Central M well as oil other
| roads must have cotton compressed accoros
Ing ia the commissions regulations.
Prior 10 the time the commission pro-
mulgatcd rules for the compression OF cot
| ton, the railroads were Mt liberty to stop
| the cotton ut such points AS they might see
nj TO have It compressed, or they might
| carry II to destination nat, ana there turn
| Il over to congresses n II seemed desirable.
The commission undertook to say that all
COMPRISING must be done at the first COM
press reached by the shipment after leav.
ing for destination. The Houston and Texas
Central railroad had been sending great
deal Of cotton to Houston fiat. and having
It compressed there, giving the presses at
| intermediate points the by. When the
commission ruled against this practice the
railroad demurred to the right of the COM
mission to regulate, among other things
representing the incapacity OF the interior
congresses to promptly handle large GUAM
titles Of cotton and to properly press the
same, In comparison with the dispatch and
| service given at It's southern terminus.
The effect OF the decision OF the supreme
court, 80 far as Houston Is concerned. VIII
be to cut of from the congresses at that
point a great deal Of business which thcy
enjoyed before the commissions ruling ana
during the suspension thereof
A bill was introduced In the house st
Austin some days ago by Logan to confer
upon the railroad commission the power
to regulate the compression OF cotton ana
the bailng OF wool. hides. etc., for shipment.
| This was evidently intended to back the
commission UP in the rulings already made
and TO supply tiny possible mifSins INKS
in the present laws. X
The decision Of the supreme court rem
ders further legislation unnecessary, since
any objections TO the legislation contem-
plated by the Logan bill. TO be elective
would apparently have TO be directed q
the repeal OF legislation already existlns.