The Houston daily post. [volume] (Houston, Tex.) 1886-1903, 1897-10-11
THAT "COMPROMIsE."
Colonel mt Tracy Has a say Ancnt
Sensation Mongers.

colonel mt Tracy Has a sny Amen
Sensation Mongers.
To the Editor Of The Post.
Rockdale, Texas. October 10.--1 notice II
certain papers criticisms of the compro
mise made by Attorney General Crane will
the Southern Pacific Railroad company To-
violations Of the law of the State o
Texas The criticisms are manifestly thu
result OF Misrepresentation or dense
ignorance of the facts or a want Of fair
| ness in according to others Just judy
| ment. Through the energies Of the State
| officers at Austin they were enabled tc
unearth the violations and DETERMINATIONS
against persons and places in the matter OF
freight rates in the State Of Texas. These
| violations OF the law were skillfully ma
| nipulated by the railroad company SO as
| to raise a question of interstate law,
| which, upon hearing, would be likely to
| be moved from the State to the federal
| courts. Fer instance, the railroad COM
! pany would bill cotton from San Marcos
to New orleans with instructions, See
Inman & Co., at Houston, Texas On the
arrival Of the cotton In Houston Imam Il
20. WUulu receive the CUJlOH, uulUdu III
sample 1t and classify and make the
shipments from there of the cotton in It's
certain classes, to the various points they
desire. Now in doing this, they claim
that this eyasiye and indirect scheme
makes the shipment interstate and gov
erned by the rates they get ON through
rates 10 New Orleans. So any fair minded
man who has any idea OF law can see the
legal complication OF this transaction. All
nf f1Ao rsaha I'D n
leans or out of the State OF Texas. This
Is. think, a fair and average statement
OF the condition OF the cases. When At
torney General Crane with the assistance
OF the railroad commissions and other
State officers, had collected all of the evil
dence and details so as to make fifty cases
against the Southern Pacific and filed the
same in the court the Southern Pacific
attorneyS--I mean regular attorneys for
said road Baker, Bolts & Baker, and some
other regular attorneys and no one else
MADE the agreement with the attorney gem
eral that they would enter plea of guilty
TO the Hty cases and pay fine of twenty
I'VE thousand dollars into the State treas
ury and all cost OF these suits: and that
they would thereafter not discriminate
against any person or place in the State
of Texas. The attorney general agreed
that II they would carry out in good faith
their part of the agreement he would not
insutute any more suits against them for
past violations of the law but that his
successors were not bound to refrain from
prosecuting them for any OF the violations
or the law heretofore committed. Was
this not beneficial to the State of Texas?
III certainly was. for the following reasons:
The state has not lost one iota of the
claims that she had against said company
LOT any violations OF any law in the State
or Texas. and there were no promises ar
of promises that they would |
not be prosecuted for violatiosn in the flu |
t'lre; but. on the other hand, a positive |
assurance, which was unnecessary, that the |
attorney general would prosecute for any |
violation Of any law, committed in the f1 |
ture. BY this agreement the state nut |
an END TO litigation of fifty suits and has |
am informed, twenty-five thou |
SAND dollars cash in her treasury and 10 |
renewed OF all responsibility OF cost. Would |
any sane man consider these promises det-
r'mental to the best interests Of the State?
think not
Some people. though they are IN n very
small minority In tho State Of Texas ers
prone to criticise the action OF anv officor
lney iaii to beat at the election. Can the
parties In Texas who seem terrib,v diss
.ressed about the Austin ring, In 4rmtb
,hn, to one fact, naming the fact in
s .i,, me present administration has been
,u',y OF any nlshonorable act in transact |
* 'ne business Of the State Of Texas? II
~ Eau, III would be more manly for
mem TO do so in plain English than Il Is
OF mem TO insinuate, ask a question In
ne 'ssue OF the paper or make an asser-
ION ana IN the NEXT issue promuIpate tbe
anne as fact, when their questions or
sseruons, as before stated, are nothing
loie imam myths without any foundation
! fact to back ME same.
n 81
ioer.y or the press. but believe the nrass
IKE individuals should be held responsihie
lr nus slanderous words. unless that snol-
:, OF ny the press Is based upon facts. ana
nen paper speaks slanderously NJ in
ividuais or officers without any fo,tnda-
on Oh iact upon which to base it's SLAM
eious utterances. 1t should be held that
ne same is maliciously done.
Now, as to Hogg & Robertson heinz an,
'oyed by the railroad companv IN .sstst ,
lem In this compromise, IL they did so T.
,oie man IN Texas who has ever visited
10 court house or any lawyers office ybat
pes not Know that lawyers do not refuse | !
Uses on account OF the personal or nolitis ,
= opinion OF their clients? Do thew think !
-" -, s''ere ls a nrst-class Arm OF lawyers I
NIL. susie OF Texas. regardless of their | /
,,ltics, who would not accent a fec - i,
me, ,,r prosecute or lrfend a criminal
'., ,o company, merchant, a banker or
pam citizen? Then. why Ali of tbts
tnoombe criticism? When you hear
an generally unjustiy criticising o,bar !
'opie, one OF these few things bavs
'lruck him; he has either been defeated /
some office. as lawyer Ia practicinr ,
,thout clients, as preacher is without nuie !
:. :. as professor is without position IN
~ sehooi or as farmer Is without any i
W '"e grass having run him out of Ii. | h
N. H. Tracy. n
About That Efnrv.