The Houston daily post. [volume] (Houston, Tex.) 1886-1903, 1897-01-28
THE COMMISSION TO DECIDE,
Able Arguments Made 10 the Wharf
Company Case.
DECISION WILL Be PROMPTLY MADE.
The Attorneys for PlaintiHs Contend
the Wharf Company Railroad Is
Subject to the Omniission.

W. l.. Moody & Co. VS.. the Galveston
Wharf company, was begun this morning
by Mr.. Ballinger for the defendant Mr.
Ballnger was loaded with authorities and
ably addressed himself to the proposition
tinct institution from the wharves, oper-
ated by the Wharf company and construct
cd under special charter for the sole pur-
pose OF connecting said wharves with the
termini of tie railways entering Calves
ton. hence not within commission jurisdic-
ton. For the plaintiffs. Mr.. Lovejoy con-
tended that the Wharf company railroad is
such road as is contemplated in article
90 of the general incorporation act passed
by the Twenty -fourth legislature and
therefore subject to commission regulation.
He submitted that its business was de-
rived from State. interstate and interna-
tional traffic and in no sense local. Quoting
from the Wharf company's charter, he in
terpreted II as aiming at forcing the com
mon carriers OF Texas TO carry the stun
coming over the wharf and to free said
Wharf company absolutely from the con-
troll of said common carriers and advanced
that under said charter commission tariffs
are being disregarded and higher freight
rates than those promulgated by the COIN
mission are being collected upon the com
merce of the port of Galveston. II had not
been the purpose of the Wharf company
in obtaining railroad ctarter to fix IT.
self to do local carrying business neither
had 1t been the intention of the legislature
TO so fix it when 1t granted said charter
In effect. the Wharf company railroads
charter rights bring that corporation with
In the constitutional definition of a COM
mon carrier. Its operators he claimed,
dictate to the business interests of Gal
weston through the railroads and levy toll
upon every car of freight that comes
within their reach. They have the right
to compel connecting common carriers TO
transport their cars should they choose to
run any and he concluded that If they can
not be regulated the commission act Is u
nullitv. as ii is rendered imperative in so
far as the freight moving In and out of
Galveston is concerned. said freight con-
shutting large portion of the freight OF
the State.
Mr.. Lovejoy presented his case in a for
chile manner. making himself exceptionally
clear and Displaying an intimate knowl-
edge of his subject. He was followed by
Governor llogg, who laid down the propo
sition that short local lines OF railway are
excepted from commission control. that
section 3 of the Galveston Wharf Railway
incorporation act is void. and only such
railways as have the power of eminent do
main are within the jurisdiction of the
commission If the commission can not
regulate the Wharf Company railroad il Il
helpless, he said. to protect the people Of
Texas against an arbitrary increase IL
freight rates at the option of said Whar
company, as this company is without com
mission regulation In a position to charg,
what it pleases for the movement o
freight over its tracks in addition to tn,
commission rate to the initial point of sal,
tracks. He denied the existence of such
thing as u belt line and also that tn,
Wharf Company railroad does a purely 10
cal business or that its charter exempts i
from commission regulation. He supporte t
| his argument with ample authorities ant
with effective constitutional construction
Mr.. A. Il. Campbell OF Galveston CLOSED
for the defendants He denied that TIL
wharf railroad was anything but privat,
track. and that if after paying for track
age service thereover the railroads choos
to assess the cost of said service agains
some consignees and TO remit 1t for others
the Wharf company is not responsible IL
| tho premises because IL collects for tn
| service in every instance from the rail
roads. Did not deny that the Legislature
| had authority to confer upon the commits
sion jurisdiction over terminal roads. bu
denied that 1T had ever exercised such au
| thority. Denied that the wharf road is
| common carrier Contended that the inter
| state commerce commission has define
belt lines: that said definition was give
before the passage of the Texas statute re
/ lating to belt lines, and that the whar
railroad Is belt line according to the In
terstate commerce commission definition
hence free OF commission regulation. Sal
definition applies to road in no manne
circular. He denied that the Texas statut
defining belt lines applies only to street ca
belts, as before tho time of the passage G
said statute the interstate commerce com
mission had gone on recCcS as declaring
straight transfer track to be belt line
Did not contend that the State OF Texa
did not have the power to regulate th
wharf track. but did contend that the stat
had not yet delegated that power to tn
commission. Asked for a decision as tn
law now Is and not as 1t ought to be.
At the conclusion of Mr. Campbells nj
gument tho commission retired for cor
sultation and In few moments returne
and announced that the commission woul
take the matter under Amusement and civ
a decision as soon as possible, and II
meeting adjourned until further notice.
,uI e. y. Engf Trntu.