The Houston daily post. [volume] (Houston, Tex.) 1886-1903, 1897-04-29

burden tho railway company with an add
tional expense at compress points where
| they have no switching crews. and would
| cause a delay and Inconvenience In the
| movements of It's trains. That branch OF
| the evidence which tends TO show that the
public would be as well served and as
much benefited by permitting the railway
| to carry the cotton to Houston in violation
| of the rules, and there have 1t compressed,
has been disposed of by what has been pre- =
viously said upon that question. The evil
dence does not show that the delay and
Inconvenience accustomed by sidetrackng
| cars at compress points would seriously
embarrass the appellee in the movements
of its trains. Nor does II appear that the
cost and expense attendant upon that SER
vice stands in disproportionate ratio TO
the benefits TO be received by the company
and the public from its performance. II
is not shown that the expense in this re-
spect is very much greater than that In
CURED by tho railway company In plac
ing shipments OF other commodities In car
load lots on sidctracks at stations where
destined. There are many services and
duties which tho railway companies must
perform at cost and expense to them In
the interest OF the public. And 1t has
never been successfully contended that
they are ahsolved from the duties rest
ing upon them in these respects because
their performance is attended with eN-
pense Under the law. when circumstances
authorize it, tho railway is required 10
transport freight in carload lots; and 1t
is well known that these cars are deliv-
cred TO tho stations whore billed, and
there sidetrackcd by tho railway company
in order to be unloaeed or II not side
tracked, and the company wishes that the
car shall remain In the train, the train is
there delayed until the car Is unloaded.
No., .,.,.
nor can they successfully urge, that they
should not be required TO transport in car
load lots because the delay and switching
of the car at point of destination or hay
ing 1t unloaded there viii result In incon-
vcnience and expense to the company. The
interest of tho public requires of the
railway companies that they shall main
tain their tracks and rolling stock in a
reasonably safe condition and that they
shall offer to the public adequate and prop
cr facilities for transportation, aud they are
required in the pursuit of diligence and
care. to do many other things All ot
these duties occasion an expense to the
railway companies. Without doing these
things and performing these duties the
railway companies could possibly operate
their roads at less cost and expense, hut
In this aga II is not seriously conteuded
that the extra cost and expense connected
services Will excuse the roads from per
forming them. In the performance of these
duties it is difficult To determine the cx
tent of the benefits to result, to the public
but in a general way il must be- admitted
that to some extent 1t exists, but the diff
tculty lies in ascertainng the extent of
1t and measuring it, But the recognition
Of the existence of some appreciahle bene-
tit IN result to the public from the per-
Torrance of many of these duties removes
tho only obstacle in the way requiring
their performance. The moment il is adj
mitted that the public interest requires the
service. tho railway company must stand
ready to perform il, and the fact that this
may occasion Il reasonable cost and cX-
pense will not relieve the railway from its
duty in the premises
We have not been able to find case OK
actly in pont-that U.s. case where this
identical question was inyolved-but many
cases may be found where municipal or
dinances and resolutions have been at
tackled on the ground that they were un-
reasonable. and which have been sustained
because they served public purpose. And
the fact that the persons who fell within
their operation were charged with add
tional burdens and expense and deprived
of some rights and privileges which they
had before enjoyed were not obstacles In
the way Of the enforcement of the ordi-
nances. and were not substantial reasons
for holding them unreasonable, Many cases
on this line are colated in II American
and English Encyclopedia law, pages 2iS
10 $50. By analogy these cases have some
bearing on the question under discus
sion: for as previously stated. the appl-
cation of the rules Of construction as TO
ascertainlng If an ordinance is unreason-
bic should he applied in an effort to dis
cover the effect of the rules and regula-
tions of the commission.
For the reasons stated the Judgment of
the court below is reversed. and Judgment
here rendered to the effect that the appel
lee take nothing by its suit and that The
appellant go hence, and that the DEGREES
and orders enioning the appellant from
enforcing it's rules be vacated and set
aside. The cost Of this appeal, MS well as
that Of the court below, is taxed against
appellee.
Tho Judgment we hereby render Is
without prejudice TO appellee TO pursue
any remedy IT may have In the future
to enjon the enforcement Of the com
mission rules If. ~ reason of subse-
auent facts, they should become UNI
reasable or unjust to appellee
Fisher, Chief Justice.