The Houston daily post. [volume] (Houston, Tex.) 1886-1903, 1897-01-23
TESTIMONY BY Mr.. MOODY.
After Corner Finishes He Takes the
Witness Stand.
JURISDICTION is STILL AN ISSUE.
No Cotton Delivered TO Them by the
Wharf Road Unless One Dollar
Per Cur Was Paid-Notcs.


plant of w. l.. Moody g. Co. against the
Galveston Wharf company this morning,
with MIR. Corner, expert engineer. again on
the stand.
Cross examined by Mr.. Ballinger, Mr..
Corner testified further as to the differ
ence between belt line and terminal
railroad. basing his statements upon per-
from text books recognized as authority by
the engineering profession. Wharves and
piers he cassed as terminal facilities, and
railroad terminal facilities, he declared,
are such whether owned by n railroad or
not. just so railroad uses them. Asked
whether a track without yards at either
end, without warehouses, round houses,
he said he could not answer categorically,
but replied that. Invested of the appurte-
nances specified. it would remain one of
the elements of a terminal railroad. Stat
ing hypothetical case in which the SER
vice performed was Identical to that per-
formed by the wharf company Mr.. Balm
ser asked Mr. Corner what kind of line
~
and the answer was that it would be a ter
mnal line. The wharf company line is not
Il belt line, lie said, because its tracks are
parallel to converging lines instead of in
tcrsecting them, and further because it
makes no attempt to reach the ideal form
of a belt line, which Is circular, although
it is rot necessary for 4 belt line to liter
l.,lI IAr@
line becomes a terminal railroad when 1T
performs the functions of terminal rail-
road.
Adjourned until Q p. m.
At the afternoon session Mr.. Corney said
that no considered that portion of the
Wharf company's track over which cars
were taken to the Moody press a transfer
track of a terminal railroad and that the
ownership of railroad had nothing to do
with determining the physical facts rela-
tive to the character of said road In his
opinion none of the roads entering Calves
ton have terminal facilities adequate for
the handling Of anything but local traffic
and for the breaking up of trains for
transfer to tho true terminal which is on
The wharf. Did not know of any railroad
in the United States handling cotton with
sufficient shed room TO store all II handles
Of the crop in twelve months. In his opin-
ion the best facilities in that line were
luTHlsueu on lne galveston WndINtS. IL
as matter Of fact the Galveston Wharf
Railroad company does not own anything
but tracks and none OF the warehouses,
wharves, sheds, etc, to which cars are de-
livered over said tracks it would be hard
TO tell what it is in Mr.. Corners opinion.
Finally. however he answered to repeated
questioning by MIR. Ballinger that they
would be terminal tracks
On redirect examination Mr. Corner
testified in effect that the Galveston Wharf
Company railroad is possessed of ma
iority of the characteristics attributed to
terminal railroads by the Interstate com
merce commission, whose classification has
been adopted by the State commission, and
that a belt line is but a species OF terminal
roads.
w. l.. Moody having been sworn testi-
fled as to the location OF the w. l.. Moody
O. Co.'S press. which Is on the Wharf com
panys property and to which tracks were
built by said Wharf company. Esndled
cotton as factor and compressed and de-
livered cotton TO purchasers. When asked
to tell what he knows Of the Wharf Com
pany railroad. its characteristics and tho
uses to which il is put, he stated that it
owns tracks which affords the roads run
ming into Galveston the means of reaching
ships and delivering export and receiving
import business. over these tracks cotton
is delivered in sheds on the wharf for stor
age as well as for foreign shipment. This
cotton Is enormously denominated through
cotton when as a matter of fact 1t is really
local cotton. Wheat is shipped locally to
Galveston for delivery TO flour mills and
elevators on the Wharf company property.
Mr.. Moody identified certain bills Of lading
showing that cotton had been billed by
several roads from the interior 10 the
Moody compress Had had no cotton de-
livered at the press within the past two
years except by the la Porte road. The
| Ia IAlt n
the Moody press because tho Wharf com
pany charged them 81 per car for the use
OF its tracks to reach said press and re-
fused to remit said charge with reference
to cotton consigned TO w. l.. Moody &
Co.
Tho defendants objected to Mr.. Moody $
testimony and the attorneys on both sides
wrangled over II so much that Judge Rea-
gan was moved to remark that witness
might as well 20 on and tell all about his
troubles with tho Wharf company, as tes-
| timony on that point was immateriai at
the present stage Of the investigation. Con
| tinuins Mr.. Moody stated that the rail
roads absorb 81 n car trackag~ charged on
Gotten delivered to warehouses and ship
brokers on the wharf. but refused TO ali
sorh 1t on cotton consigned to the Moody
( press Finally the commission ruled that
testimony as to the absorption Of trackage
{ did not bear upon the question Of the tu-
ID AiShitiloi az lssup anu hcN ilht VI tuN'
tionng was inaururatcd. Mr. Moody soon
returned TO the question OF trackage, how
ever. and stated that cotton delivered on
a track on ono side Of the Moody press 10
Fowler g. McVitie paid no trackaGe. while
4 II II was delivered on track on the other
side Of tho same press trackage was asked
thereon. whereupon there was an objection
on tho part of the defense and further ar
| gumcnt by attorneys. at the conclusion oil
which Judge Reagan remarked that 1t was
competent to prove in determining INC
question Of jurisdiction that the railroads
paid the Wharf company for trackage, but
that whether tho railroads absorbed this
trackage In some cases and collected 1t from
consignoes in others related to the question
Of discrimination. II had been amply
proven thai the tracksge was collected by
tho Wharf company and he could not see
the necessity OF prolongng the hearing and
| aacumulating further evidence on tha'
point. MIR. Lovejoy insisted that to prove
absorption OF the charge in some cases ana
collection thereof in others went toward
proving that the Wharf Company railroad